Nia Wilkinson.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Kingston Upon Thames with an approval rate of 74% across 756 decided planning applications, spanning 20 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Wilkinson is an almost pure Certificate of Lawfulness/permitted-development specialist (233 of 234 reports carry no 'approve'/'refuse' recommendation label at all, reflecting the CPU/PAEXT decision vocabulary rather than a planning-merits recommendation), and is distinctive for working through the Permitted Development Rights for Householders Technical Guidance clause-by-clause, quoting each numbered sub-condition (e.g. Class B.1(d), Class B.2(c)) verbatim before stating plainly whether it 'has not been confirmed' that the proposal complies -- refusing certificates where any single condition is unconfirmed rather than weighing the scheme overall. She also cross-references a site's own recent planning history (recently granted/refused permissions on the same address) explicitly within the assessment.
· quotes each numbered Permitted Development Rights for Householders Technical Guidance sub-condition (Class A/B/C) verbatim before stating whether it has been confirmed compliant, refusing a certificate on any single unconfirmed condition rather than a holistic assessment
· explicitly cross-references the site's own recent planning history (permissions and refusals on the same address) as a direct input to the current lawfulness assessment
· treats missing supporting detail (e.g. proposed materials not specified) as sufficient on its own to refuse a certificate, rather than requesting further information
· whether each individual numbered condition of the Permitted Development Rights Technical Guidance (dimensions, materials, window obscuration) has been positively confirmed by the submitted information
· the site's own recent planning history for directly relevant prior permissions or refusals
· whether missing or unclear supporting detail on its own is sufficient grounds to refuse a Certificate of Lawfulness
“Therefore it has not been confirmed that the proposal would comply with Condition B.1 (d)”
25/01349/CPU
“In this instance, details have not been provided either on the application form or on the submitted drawings. Therefore it has not been confirmed that the proposal would comply with Condition B.2 (a)”
26/00005/CPU
Measured from 234 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 cited most on decision notices for applications Nia Wilkinson decided — 348 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.
Show all 20 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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, 2022–26. · 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 234 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.