Ellie Cooke.
Active — last recorded decision Feb 2026
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 72% across 194 decided planning applications, spanning 13 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×.
Cooke's reports consistently reference the site's planning history of a previous refusal on the same scheme, describing the specific amendments made since (setbacks added, ridge lowered, glazing obscured) and evaluating whether those changes are sufficient to overcome the earlier objection. She addresses named individual neighbouring addresses by number when assessing amenity impact rather than a generic neighbour paragraph.
· opens design assessment by referencing a specific prior refusal reference for the same site and lists the amendments made since to address it
· walks through amenity impact address-by-address (e.g. 'No. 99', 'No. 95') rather than a single blended neighbour-amenity conclusion
· flags a scheme as 'not strictly policy compliant' on a numeric SPD threshold but still finds it acceptable in context, explicitly naming the shortfall
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: what specifically changed in a resubmitted scheme compared to the version that was previously refused
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: amenity impact assessed separately for each individually named neighbouring property rather than in aggregate
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether remaining garden space meets the SPD's numeric benchmark (e.g. 40m2 for a 2-bedroom property)
“Since the previous refusal under planning application 23/3033/HOT, the proposal has been amended to reduce its visual bulk and general impact on the existing character. Specifically, the two storey-side extension has been setback 1 metre from the front, has a lowered ridge and has incorporated obscured glazed windows on the side elevations.”
24/2115/HOT
“No. 99 The neighbouring dwellinghouse located at No. 99 has an existing single storey rear extension which directly abuts the subject site. The proposed extension would project approximately 1.3 beyond this extension.”
24/2253/HOT
“It is noted that while the extension is slightly more than half the width of the house and as such not strictly policy compliant, rear extensions are sited within the streetscape and are therefore not considered out of character.”
24/2286/FUL Flat 1 148 Argyle Avenue Whitton Hounslow TW3 2LS First floor rear extension, loft conversion rear dormer ECO
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 13 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–26.[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, 2024–26. · 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.