Gosia Danik.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Kingston Upon Thames with an approval rate of 68% across 1,167 decided planning applications, spanning 35 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Kingston Upon Thames reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Danik's caseload is dominated by householder rear/side extensions and she is distinctive for a consistent numeric formula assessing amenity impact -- stating the extension's exact depth and eaves height, then concluding it would have 'limited impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers ... in terms outlook, overbearing effect and sense of enclosure' -- applied almost verbatim across dozens of reports regardless of site specifics, alongside a routine 45-degree-test/BRE-guideline check for daylight/sunlight. Her refusal reports depart from this formula to name a specific Policy Guidance non-compliance (most often Policy Guidance 39's dormer set-in requirement) as the decisive reason, and on PAEXT/PACND prior-approval applications she works through the Schedule 2 permitted-development criteria table systematically before reaching a siting/appearance conclusion.
· applies a near-verbatim formulaic amenity finding ('would have limited impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers ... in terms outlook, overbearing effect and sense of enclosure') keyed only to the extension's stated depth and eaves height, largely independent of site-specific detail
· on refusals, departs from the standard approval formula to name one specific Residential Design SPD Policy Guidance clause (commonly PG39's dormer set-in requirement) as the decisive non-compliance
· on prior-approval (PAEXT/PACND) applications, works through the GPDO Schedule 2 criteria table clause-by-clause before reaching a siting/appearance conclusion
· the extension's stated depth and eaves height as the primary inputs to the standard amenity-impact formula
· whether a dormer or roof extension is sufficiently 'set in' from the eaves/side per Policy Guidance 39 of the Residential Design SPD
· clause-by-clause GPDO Schedule 2 criteria compliance (dimensions, materials, window obscuration) for prior-approval and permitted-development applications
“Given its limited depth of approx. 4m and eaves height of approx. 2.4m, it is considered that the proposed single storey rear extension would have limited impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at Nos. 56 and 60 Wolsey Drive, in terms outlook, overbearing effect and sense of enclosure”
20/00143/HOU
“The proposed side dormer roof extension would be in conflict with Policy Guidance 39 as it would not be sufficiently set in from the side and eaves of the existing roof”
20/00146/HOU
Measured from 472 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.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 472 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 35 rows
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.
- [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]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]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]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 472 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.