Nesha Burnham.
Last recorded decision Jul 2020 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Kingston Upon Thames with an approval rate of 71% across 138 decided planning applications, spanning 19 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.
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×.
Burnham has the highest coded refusal rate among Kingston's high-volume officers, distinctive for a rigorous protect-employment-use test on office/retail-to-residential conversions -- requiring robust marketing evidence before accepting a claimed loss of viability, and refusing where 'no robust evidence has been submitted to indicate that the property has been marketed' per Policy DM17 -- and for a detailed, quantified highway-safety assessment on new-access applications that names the specific bus routes and frequencies affected by a proposed dropped kerb or crossover. She structures her assessments under a consistent set of named sub-headings (Character and Appearance, then Principle of Development, then topic-specific headings) and is comfortable citing multiple non-compliant policies together in a single refusal reason.
· on office/retail-to-residential conversions, requires robust marketing evidence before accepting a claimed loss of employment viability, refusing under Policy DM17 where none is submitted
· on new vehicular access applications, quantifies highway-safety harm by naming the specific bus routes, frequencies and distances affected by a proposed dropped kerb or crossover
· cites multiple non-compliant policies together within a single refusal reason rather than isolating one decisive policy
· whether robust marketing evidence has been submitted to justify the loss of an existing employment (office/retail) use under Policy DM17
· the specific bus routes, frequencies and sight-line distances affected by a proposed new vehicular access or dropped kerb
· whether a scheme's housing mix meets Policy DM13's minimum three-or-more-bedroom unit proportion
“No robust evidence has been submitted to indicate that the property has been marketed in accordance with Policy DM17. As such, it has not been demonstrated that there is no longer a need for employment office use at this location”
20/00235/FUL
“It is therefore considered that a car exiting from the site is likely to present unacceptable danger to road users”
20/00116/HOU
Measured from 122 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 122 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 19 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020.[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. · 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 122 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.