Aisha Stoll.
Last recorded decision Jan 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Kingston Upon Thames with an approval rate of 78% across 729 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×.
Stoll leads the borough's citation volume for D3/D6/D12/T6 London Plan 2021 design/fire-safety/transport policies, reflecting a caseload weighted toward newer, larger applications assessed against the post-2021 London Plan rather than only the 2012 Core Strategy. She is distinctive for a consistent section 73 minor-material-amendment structure (Principle of Development, then Character & Design, then Neighbouring Amenity, then Fire safety) applied near-identically across variation applications, and treats fire safety as a standalone, mandatory heading under London Plan Policy D12 even for modest schemes, rather than folding it into general conditions.
· cites the current (2021) London Plan design/transport/fire-safety policy suite (D3, D6, D12, T6) as the primary framework, supplementing rather than replacing the 2012 Core Strategy
· applies a near-identical four-part structure (Principle, Character & Design, Neighbouring Amenity, Fire Safety) to section 73 minor-material-amendment applications regardless of scale
· treats fire safety as a standalone mandatory heading under London Plan Policy D12 even for modest section 73 variations, rather than folding it into general conditions
· compliance with the current London Plan 2021 design (D3), space-standard (D6), fire-safety (D12) and transport (T6) policy suite
· whether a section 73 variation's character-and-design changes remain in keeping with the previously-approved scheme
· whether a Fire Safety Strategy has been submitted to demonstrate Policy D12(A) compliance, treated as a standalone requirement
“Officers note that the proposal would be considered a substantial overprovision of internal floorspace as identified by Policy D6, and as such would not suitably optimise housing delivery as identified within Policy H1 of the London Plan”
22/02219/FUL
“For these sized properties, policy D6 of the London Plan would require an internal floorspace of 39sqm, 50sqm, and 74 sqm respectively”
22/02226/FUL
Measured from 46 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 46 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 46 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.