James Garside.
Last recorded decision Nov 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Kingston Upon Thames with an approval rate of 70% across 260 decided planning applications, spanning 34 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×.
Garside handles Kingston's most complex major/outline schemes (care homes, large residential-led redevelopments in conservation areas) and is distinctive for engaging directly with an external Design Review Panel's own recorded feedback -- quoting its specific recommendations and concerns verbatim -- before reaching his own independent design conclusion, and for a granular neighbour-by-neighbour overlooking/privacy assessment that names each individually affected property in turn rather than a generalised amenity finding. He has the lowest coded approval comfort among the officers read in depth, reflecting a caseload concentrated in contentious, high-scrutiny major applications rather than routine householder work.
· quotes an external Design Review Panel's own recorded recommendations and concerns verbatim before reaching an independent design conclusion, rather than treating panel feedback as advisory background
· structures neighbouring-amenity assessment neighbour-by-neighbour, naming each individually affected property and quantifying overlooking/privacy impact separately for each rather than a single generalised finding
· explicitly distinguishes the lesser amenity protection owed to commercial neighbours from residential neighbours when assessing overlooking impact
· an external Design Review Panel's own specific recorded recommendations and concerns, addressed individually
· overlooking and privacy impact assessed separately for each individually named neighbouring property
· whether a major scheme's scale, footprint and massing result in 'less than substantial harm' to a conservation area's character under NPPF heritage policy
“Either reduce the amount of accommodation or convincingly demonstrate how a building of this size can fit onto this site successfully”
21/01313/OUT
“results in a building of excessive scale and mass and a plot density that is wholly out of keeping the pattern of development in the surrounding area and fails to address the site context, resulting in harm to the local townscape and less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Claremont Road Conservation Area”
21/01313/OUT
Measured from 58 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 58 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 34 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[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, 2020–23. · 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 58 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.