Joanne Simpson.
Last recorded decision Jun 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 70% across 268 decided planning applications, spanning 22 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×.
Simpson's reports open each substantive assessment with an explicit numbered/bulleted list of 'pertinent issues to consider' (principle of development, character/design, amenity, flood risk, parking, etc.) before working through them in turn. She writes MOL/Green Belt cases in terms of the NPPF 'very special circumstances' test, weighing named planning and ecological benefits directly against identified harm to openness. Her housing-mix and internal-standards reasoning invokes specific Local Plan policy sub-clauses (e.g. LP34, LP35, LP38, LP39) by number and quotes their operative text before applying it to the scheme at hand.
· lists the 'pertinent issues to consider' as a bulleted set at the start of a report before assessing each in turn
· frames Green Belt/MOL cases explicitly around the NPPF 'very special circumstances' test, naming the specific benefits relied on
· quotes the operative wording of a numbered Local Plan policy (e.g. LP34, LP35 Part A, LP39(A)/(B)) immediately before applying it to the facts of the scheme
· in prior-approval (GPDO) cases works through each lettered/numbered statutory criterion in sequence
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a scheme claims specific, named 'very special circumstances' capable of outweighing Green Belt/MOL harm, rather than generalised benefit
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a housing mix or conversion proposal is tested against the specific minimum space/floor-to-ceiling standards in the Local Plan, not just described in general terms
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: documented marketing evidence (named agents, dates, methods) before accepting a loss of office/employment floorspace
“the application is considered to deliver significant planning and ecological benefits which amount to `very special circumstances' which are considered sufficient to outweigh the harm to the openness of the MOL”
20/0300/FUL
“The pertinent issues to consider in the assessment of the application are: � Principle of development / land use / acceptability of conversion � Character / design / layout � Impact on OOLTI � Residential standards � Neighbouring amenities”
20/0520/FUL
Measured from 188 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 188 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 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 Richmond 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 — 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 188 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.