Katie Huckstepp.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Bexley with an approval rate of 75% across 152 decided planning applications, spanning 12 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 Bexley reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Huckstepp has the highest refusal rate among the smaller-volume coded officers (16/79, ~20%), and her caseload includes SINC-adjacent new-build and gypsy/traveller site improvement applications where she engages substantively with ecological consultee findings (bat roost assessments, Biodiversity Net Gain metric percentages against the 10% statutory minimum) as a named, quantified pass condition rather than a generic ecology sign-off. On Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) applications she systematically works through the named PPTS paragraph 25 checklist (existing local provision, alternative accommodation availability, personal circumstances) rather than treating traveller-site applications under the ordinary householder/design framework.
· cites the specific Biodiversity Net Gain metric percentage uplift (e.g. '22.28% uplift in Hedgerow units') against the 10% statutory minimum as a quantified pass condition, rather than a generic ecological sign-off
· on gypsy and traveller site applications, systematically works through the PPTS paragraph 25 checklist (existing local provision and need, alternative accommodation availability, applicant's personal circumstances) as its own named framework distinct from ordinary householder design tests
· engages with named ecological consultee findings (bat roost assessment recommendations for lighting strategy) as specific conditions to be imposed, not paraphrased generically
· the specific Biodiversity Net Gain percentage uplift figure demonstrated by the submitted BNG metric, checked against the 10% statutory minimum
· for gypsy and traveller site applications, whether the PPTS paragraph 25 factors (local provision, alternative accommodation, personal circumstances) have each been addressed
· whether a bat roost assessment's specific mitigation recommendations (low-impact lighting strategy for dark corridors) have been translated into an enforceable condition
“The accompanying Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) metric confirms that 22.28% uplift in Hedgerow units will be brought forward at the site, thereby exceeding the minimum 10% BNG uplift required”
24/02347/FUL
“local planning authorities should consider the following issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller sites”
24/02748/FUL
Measured from 79 published Bexley 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 79 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 12 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 Bexley 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 — Bexley'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 79 published Bexley 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.