Emer Costello.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 72% across 290 decided planning applications, spanning 22 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 Richmond Upon Thames reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Costello's reports set out a long enumerated list of 'key planning considerations' (Principle of Development, Heritage/Character and Design, Housing Mix, Residential Standards, Amenity Space, Affordable Housing, CIL, Sustainability, Highways, Waste, Residential Amenity) covering full applications rather than simple householder extensions, and she frequently checks specific numeric commuted-sum/viability and BREEAM/CO2 figures against Council benchmarks, flagging where a submitted figure is calculated on the wrong basis.
· lists a long, consistent set of named sub-headings (Principle of Development, Character and Design, Housing Mix, Amenity Space, Affordable Housing, CIL, Sustainability, Waste, Residential Amenity) as the report's own structure
· checks a submitted financial or technical figure (e.g. a commuted sum, BREEAM score, CO2 reduction percentage) against the Council's specific benchmark and states where it falls short or is calculated on an incorrect basis
· cites a specific past refusal reference on the same or a related site as a comparator when the same policy issue recurs
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a submitted financial contribution (e.g. affordable housing commuted sum) is calculated on the Council's correct benchmark rate rather than an alternative basis
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether sustainability submissions (BREEAM score, Energy Statement, Sustainable Construction Checklist) actually meet the specific numeric standard required, not just that a document was submitted
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed change of use or floorspace loss is compatible with the Local Plan's protection of that specific use class (D1, office, retail, care home)
“A commuted sum proforma submitted with the application suggests a contribution of �6,619. However, this is incorrectly on the basis of 8% however it does not reflect the Council's benchmark rent per week (reflecting the adopted 2019 Tenancy Strategy) of �155.13 for an affordable bedsit rented unit.”
19/1477/FUL
“The BREEAM score is `Very Good'. It falls below the 70% requirement to achieve `Excellent' which should be achieved in new developments.”
19/1477/FUL
“It is noted that inadequate levels of CO2 reduction was a reason for refusal in 10/2368/FUL. Though this application is not directly comparable here, the refusal indicates the importance of the Council's sustainable standards being met in this loca”
19/1477/FUL
Measured from 228 published Richmond 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 228 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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 Richmond Upon Thames planning register and published decision notices, 2020–26. · 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 — Richmond Upon Thames's decision-notice parsing is limited coverage, so no borough or officer figure is shown.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 228 published Richmond 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.