Ben Rochford.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Sutton with an approval rate of 73% across 1,239 decided planning applications, spanning 27 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 Sutton reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Rochford's reports are almost entirely measured, dimension-led assessments of side and rear extensions against SPD4's own numeric guidance (half-width for two-storey side extensions, maximum depth by dwelling type), and he is explicit when a scheme technically exceeds the SPD4 threshold but is still recommended for approval because a compensating factor (setback, lower ridgeline, asymmetrical plot, screening) offsets the excess — 'whilst the proposed two storey side extension would exceed the half-width guidance as stated in SPD4, the extension would be setback at first floor by 0.6m...'. His refusals concentrate on cumulative overdevelopment (a site already heavily extended via multiple prior permissions) and unresolved flood risk objections from the Environment Agency, where he treats the site's own extension history as an aggravating factor rather than assessing the current application in isolation.
· explicitly flags when a scheme exceeds an SPD4 numeric guideline (half-width, maximum depth) and then names the SPECIFIC compensating factor (setback, lower ridge, screening, asymmetrical plot) that makes the excess acceptable, rather than silently waiving the guidance
· on sites with a history of previous extensions, explicitly totals the CUMULATIVE effect of prior and proposed works before reaching a verdict, rather than assessing the current application in isolation
· treats a live, unresolved Environment Agency flood-risk objection as carried over from an immediately preceding refused application at the same address, rather than re-litigating the flood assessment from scratch
· whether a scheme exceeds an SPD4 numeric guideline, and if so, the specific compensating design feature (setback, lower ridgeline, screening) that justifies departing from it
· the site's full extension history (all prior permission references) considered cumulatively with the current proposal, not the current scheme in isolation
· whether a previously-refused Environment Agency flood risk objection at the same site has been positively addressed by a new Flood Risk Assessment, rather than simply resubmitted unchanged
“Whilst the proposed two storey side extension would exceed the half-width guidance as stated in SPD4, the extension would be setback at first floor by 0.6m with a matching hipped roof style depicting a lower ridgeline”
DM2020/00128
“This would be further exacerbated given the extent of the cumulative works already under construction at the site address”
DM2020/00059
Measured from 893 published Sutton 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 893 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 27 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 Sutton 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 — mean effective conditions attached to Sutton 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 893 published Sutton 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.