Development Intent
AtlasKingston Upon ThamesOfficersHoney Olaiya
Planning Atlas›Kingston Upon Thames›Honey Olaiya
Case officer · Kingston Upon Thames Planning

Honey Olaiya.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Kingston Upon Thames with an approval rate of 70% across 998 decided planning applications, spanning 35 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer998 decisions70% 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 →
998
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%50%202171%202274%202369%202469%202577%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate70% · 18th 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 reports377 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
2%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
73%
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.

Materials & detailing
2.8× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Olaiya's caseload is dominated by Certificate of Existing Use/Lawful Development (CEU/CPU) and prior-approval applications, and she is distinctive for treating these as a strict evidential burden of proof rather than a planning-merits assessment -- explicitly naming the specific documentary evidence submitted (google earth photographs, signed affidavits, Council Tax records) and then stating plainly whether it is sufficient to discharge the applicant's burden 'on the balance of probability', refusing where evidence is 'insufficient, imprecise and of very poor quality' rather than requesting further information. On section 73 minor-material-amendment applications she runs a distinct threshold test asking whether the proposed change constitutes a 'substantial amendment' to the extant permission's description of development, refusing where it would create a 'significant material change'.

Observable habits

· on CEU/CPU applications, itemises the specific documentary evidence submitted (survey photographs, affidavits, Council Tax records) and states explicitly whether it discharges the applicant's burden of proof 'on the balance of probability', rather than describing the proposal in general terms

· refuses lawful-development-certificate applications outright where evidence is judged 'insufficient, imprecise and of very poor quality', rather than seeking further information first

· on section 73 minor-material-amendment applications, runs an explicit threshold test asking whether the proposed change amounts to a 'substantial amendment' to the extant permission's description of development

What their reports consistently look for

· whether the specific evidence submitted (photographs, affidavits, council tax records, EPCs) is sufficient to prove the claimed use or operation on the balance of probability

· whether a section 73 application's proposed changes would create a 'significant material change' to the permitted description of development, rather than a minor amendment

· clause-by-clause compliance with GPDO Schedule 2 demolition/permitted-development criteria, each addressed with an explicit officer comment

Assigned Honey Olaiya 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

“whilst evidence including: plans, elevations and site photographs have been submitted, officers consider the details to be insufficient, imprecise and of very poor quality”

21/02345/CEU

“officers consider that the proposal constitutes a substantial amendment to the extant planning permission”

24/02750/FUL

Measured from 377 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 377 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DM10Design Requirements for New Developments (including House Extensions)134
9 times cited
D3
8 times cited
D12
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
68
74%
67
75%
66
72%
59
60%
58
65%
57
76%
57
69%
55
70%
54
81%
42
71%
41
70%
41
74%
34
77%
34
71%
33
81%
33
76%
32
67%
23
65%
20
41%
20
87%
13
82%
13
38%
11
60%
9
29%
9
50%
6
100%
6
67%
6
50%
6
40%
6
100%
5
0%
4
100%
4
75%
3
50%
3
33%
68
74%
67
75%
66
72%
Show all 35 rows
59
60%
58
65%
57
76%
57
69%
55
70%
54
81%
42
71%
41
70%
41
74%
34
77%
34
71%
33
81%
33
76%
32
67%
23
65%
20
41%
20
87%
13
82%
13
38%
11
60%
9
29%
9
50%
6
100%
6
67%
6
50%
6
40%
6
100%
5
0%
4
100%
4
75%
3
50%
3
33%

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
26/01136/PAEXT
PA Householder Rear Extension
—
2026-05-29
26/00811/PAEXT
PA Householder Rear Extension
Not required
2026-05-28
26/01136/PAEXT
PA Householder Rear Extension
—
2026-05-29
26/00811/PAEXT
PA Householder Rear Extension
Not required
2026-05-28
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 998 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Planning Additions
2. HB Planning Services
3. HamlynBentley Architects Ltd.
4. Bradley Building Services
At a glance
OfficerHoney Olaiya
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications998 (2020–26)
Approval rate70%
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 377 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.