Sean O'Sullivan.
Last recorded decision Jan 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Kingston Upon Thames with an approval rate of 67% across 213 decided planning applications, spanning 35 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×.
O'Sullivan is distinctive for a precise, arithmetic scrutiny of space standards on flat-conversion/subdivision schemes -- calculating the exact Gross Internal Area shortfall against the National Space Standards to the decimal square metre rather than a general 'adequate/inadequate' finding -- and for refusing where car-parking allocation between multiple units is left unclear on submitted drawings rather than assuming it can be resolved by condition. He has a comparatively higher refusal comfort reflecting a caseload weighted toward flat-conversion schemes where exact compliance is readily calculable and where marginal shortfalls are treated as a firm refusal ground.
· calculates exact Gross Internal Area shortfalls against National Space Standards to the decimal square metre, rather than a general adequacy finding
· refuses flat-conversion schemes where car-parking allocation between multiple units is unclear from submitted drawings, rather than assuming it can be resolved by condition
· treats a 'contrived' or convoluted internal layout (e.g. requiring residents to travel via a narrow corridor to reach amenity space) as a standalone standard-of-accommodation objection
· the precise decimal square-metre shortfall (or surplus) against the National Space Standards minimum GIA for the stated bedroom/person count
· whether car-parking spaces are clearly allocated between multiple proposed units on the submitted drawings
· whether the internal layout requires a convoluted or 'contrived' route to reach private amenity space
“The upper floor flat is stated to have a GIA of 84.5sqm, a shortfall of 5.5sqm”
21/02580/FUL
“insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed car parking would be sufficient in size and how it would be allocated between…the proposed flats”
21/02580/FUL
Measured from 35 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 35 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 35 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 35 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.