Jake Powell.
Last recorded decision Aug 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Kingston Upon Thames with an approval rate of 69% across 321 decided planning applications, spanning 34 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Powell's caseload includes street-furniture/telecoms-hub applications alongside routine householder work, and is distinctive for treating a Secure by Design police-officer consultation response as a decisive gating requirement on street-furniture applications -- refusing where crime-and-disorder mitigation measures (CCTV activation clarity, anti-social-behaviour review protocols) have not been clarified -- and for an energy-consumption analysis comparing a proposed installation's electricity demand against typical UK household consumption as a sustainability metric.
· treats a Secure by Design police consultation response as a decisive gating requirement for street-furniture/public-realm applications, refusing where its specific clarification requests are unmet
· quantifies a proposed installation's energy demand by direct comparison against typical UK household electricity consumption, applied as a distinct sustainability metric
· applies the GPDO's 2020 Coronavirus-regulations dwellinghouse definition update explicitly when assessing HMO change-of-use Certificate of Lawfulness applications
· whether the Metropolitan Police Secure by Design officer's specific clarification requests (CCTV activation, anti-social-behaviour review) have been addressed
· a proposed installation's electricity consumption compared directly against typical UK household usage as a sustainability benchmark
· whether the 2020 Coronavirus-regulations GPDO dwellinghouse definition update applies to a claimed HMO change of use
“On the basis of the information submitted to date, it cannot be concluded that the proposal contains sufficient measures to mitigate crime and antisocial behaviour”
22/01127/FUL
“The Hub could therefore consume the same amount of electricity as 3 UK households on a daily like for like basis”
22/01127/FUL
Measured from 33 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 33 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 34 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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, 2020–22. · 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 33 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.