Georgia Nicol.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 82% across 269 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×.
Nicol's reasoning is heavily formulaic across reports, repeatedly using phrases like 'subservient addition to the host dwelling' and 'satisfactory amount of useable and functional rear amenity space' regardless of scheme type, and she frequently measures a proposed extension's depth/height directly against the SPD's numeric thresholds before concluding compliance or exceedance.
· states a precise projection/height figure for the proposed extension and directly compares it to the SPD's stated metre threshold (e.g. 3m for terraces) to determine compliance
· repeats a small set of stock phrases ('subservient addition', 'subordinate in scale', 'satisfactory amount of useable and functional rear amenity space') across otherwise different schemes
· cites nearby existing outbuildings, garage conversions, or extensions of similar scale in the immediate area as comparators supporting acceptability
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific extension depth/height figure checked against the SPD's metre threshold for the relevant dwelling type
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: existing comparator development (garages, outbuildings, extensions) of similar scale in the immediate vicinity
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a satisfactory amount of useable rear amenity space is retained after the proposed works
“The proposed rear extension as amended projects 4m from the rear wall of the existing dwelling, which exceeds SPD guidance.”
23/1951/HOT
“Windows should maintain consistent detail, line up new detail… with existing, maintain consistent style, repair/replace the with same/similar, avoid mixing styes and retain character.”
23.2271.HOT 427 Hanworth Road, Whitton Hounslow, TW4 5LQ Conversion of garage into habitable space. Georgia Nicol 17.10.23
Measured from 300 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 300 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[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, 2023–26. · 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 300 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.