Lucy Bennett.
Active — last recorded decision Nov 2025
A case officer at Kingston Upon Thames with an approval rate of 59% across 117 decided planning applications, spanning 18 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×.
Bennett handles Kingston's largest civic-scale schemes (a new leisure centre adjacent to a Grade II listed library, in this coded sample) and is distinctive for engaging with specialist technical assessments beyond the routine planning toolkit -- a Wind Microclimate Report using CFD modelling, detailed cycle-parking stakeholder consultation responses from a named cycling campaign group -- rather than relying on general policy compliance statements, and for an asset-by-asset heritage impact assessment naming each individually affected heritage asset (the listed library, an unlisted stone pier, the conservation area) with a separate significance conclusion for each.
· engages directly with specialist technical assessments (Wind Microclimate CFD modelling reports) beyond the routine planning toolkit, summarising their specific findings rather than a general compliance statement
· incorporates detailed, quoted consultation responses from named stakeholder groups (e.g. a cycling campaign) into the assessment rather than a generic 'no objection' summary
· runs an asset-by-asset heritage impact assessment, naming each individually affected heritage asset separately with its own significance conclusion rather than one combined heritage finding
· the specific findings of specialist technical reports (e.g. wind microclimate CFD modelling) rather than a general policy-compliance statement
· detailed, named stakeholder consultation feedback (e.g. cycling campaign groups) engaged with directly rather than summarised generically
· a separate, individually-reasoned significance and impact conclusion for each heritage asset potentially affected by a major scheme
“The study has employed modelling (CFD) to predict the strength of wind speeds that would occur following the introduction of the proposed development”
24/00805/FUL
“We note the improvements made to the cycle parking compared to the previous application”
24/00805/FUL
Measured from 26 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 26 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 18 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–25.[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, 2021–25. · 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 26 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.