Development Intent
AtlasKingston Upon ThamesOfficersCarmellena Hickey
Planning Atlas›Kingston Upon Thames›Carmellena Hickey
Case officer · Kingston Upon Thames Planning

Carmellena Hickey.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Kingston Upon Thames with an approval rate of 69% across 1,555 decided planning applications, spanning 35 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer1,555 decisions69% approvalSave
Kingston Upon Thames · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
1,555
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%72%202070%202160%202265%202372%202469%202578%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate69% · 22nd of 32
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports498 officer reports parsed
4%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
3%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
1%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
72%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Kingston Upon Thames's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Kingston Upon Thames reports. Attention, not stance.

Precedent & consistency
1.9× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.38× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.22× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.19× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.15× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Hickey's caseload spans the full range of Kingston's householder/full-application/certificate-of-lawfulness mix and is distinctive for a settled, formulaic 'proportionate and subordinate addition' finding on ordinary rear/side extensions, checked before she moves to a depth/height/eaves-height quantification of neighbouring-amenity impact framed against the specific adjoining property. On larger full applications she runs the housing-need and space-standard tests methodically against the Council's Housing Needs Assessment and the London Plan's Policy D6 GIA/ceiling-height thresholds, and on Certificate of Lawful Use (CPU/CEU) applications she applies the Section 55 'material change of use'/'building operations' legal test rigorously, citing named case law (the 'Woolley Chickens' and Skerrits judgments) to determine whether a structure counts as development before reaching any planning merits question.

Observable habits

· on ordinary householder extensions, opens with a 'proportionate and subordinate addition' finding keyed to the extension's depth/width/height in metres, before any streetscene or amenity discussion

· on full applications for new dwellings, runs the London Plan Policy D6 GIA/ceiling-height/dual-aspect space-standard checklist methodically against the Council's own Housing Needs Assessment housing-mix targets

· on Certificate of Lawful Use (CPU/CEU) applications, applies the Section 55 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 'material change of use'/'building operations' test with named case-law citations (Woolley Chickens, Skerrits, Hall Hunter) before considering any planning merits

What their reports consistently look for

· whether the extension's depth/width/height keeps it 'subordinate' to the host dwelling before any streetscene assessment

· whether the proposed GIA, ceiling height and dual-aspect provision meet the London Plan Policy D6 minimum space standards

· whether a structure or change of use satisfies the Section 55(1) definition of 'development', tested against named case law rather than a general impression

Assigned Carmellena Hickey on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“it is considered that the proposed changes would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the area, or cause an unacceptable adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers”

20/00535/FUL

“The overall GIA, bedroom sizes and storage space would be compliant with LP Policy D6”

20/00863/FUL

Measured from 498 published Kingston Upon Thames officer reports written by this officer, with recited policy boilerplate stripped before any counting. These describe how this officer works and writes — they are not outcome predictions. Every quote is from a named public report.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 498 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DM10Design Requirements for New Developments (including House Extensions)134
133 times cited
CS8Character, Design and Heritage
25 times cited
D12
19 times cited
D6
18 times cited
T6Management and Improvement of
16 times cited
D3
15 times cited
DM9Managing Vehicle Use for New Development
13 times cited
T5Local Distributor Roads
12 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
83
76%
71
67%
65
78%
64
54%
63
64%
59
64%
57
68%
52
70%
52
83%
49
64%
48
72%
47
56%
45
83%
45
68%
44
68%
43
68%
42
76%
42
70%
42
59%
40
66%
40
61%
39
68%
38
80%
37
44%
37
58%
36
76%
35
67%
33
68%
33
62%
33
77%
32
77%
31
77%
29
84%
27
65%
21
83%
83
76%
71
67%
65
78%
Show all 35 rows
64
54%
63
64%
59
64%
57
68%
52
70%
52
83%
49
64%
48
72%
47
56%
45
83%
45
68%
44
68%
43
68%
42
76%
42
70%
42
59%
40
66%
40
61%
39
68%
38
80%
37
44%
37
58%
36
76%
35
67%
33
68%
33
62%
33
77%
32
77%
31
77%
29
84%
27
65%
21
83%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
25/01354/LBC
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2026-06-04
25/02201/LBC
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2026-06-04
25/01354/LBC
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2026-06-04
25/02201/LBC
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2026-06-04
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 1,555 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. HB Planning Services
2. Resi
3. HJ Homes Ltd
4. XEVA DESIGN LTD
At a glance
OfficerCarmellena Hickey
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications1,555 (2020–26)
Approval rate69%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Kingston Upon Thames planning register and published decision notices, 2020–26. · methodology
  2. [2]Appeal overturn and decision-time benchmarks — Planning Inspectorate (PINS) appeal decisions and application date pairs; not yet computed per officer, shown as a dash until they are. · PINS appeals casework
  3. [3]Condition load — mean effective conditions attached to Kingston Upon Thames decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
  4. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 498 published Kingston Upon Thames officer reports written by this officer, recited policy boilerplate stripped before counting; disposition text coded from their own reasoning with every quote machine-verified verbatim. Descriptive of how they work — not outcome predictions.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.