Kreena Patel.
Recently active — last recorded decision Oct 2025
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 84% across 69 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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×.
Patel writes basement and lightwell cases with close attention to physical siting detail (depth of lightwell, presence of boundary walls, front-garden screening) to justify why a feature that might otherwise be prominent is not visible from the street. Her prior-approval (GPDO) reports work mechanically through each lettered/numbered statutory criterion with an explicit 'Complies'/'Does not comply' judgement per limb, and she is willing to find non-compliance is unproven where the applicant has not supplied evidence (e.g. of a building's construction date), placing the onus on the applicant.
· justifies acceptability of basement lightwells/plant by reference to specific concealment features (boundary wall height, garden depth, siting) rather than a general design conclusion
· in GPDO prior-approval reports, states 'Complies' or a specific non-compliance finding against each individual lettered/numbered criterion of the statutory class
· explicitly places the evidential onus on the applicant when information supporting a GPDO criterion (e.g. construction date, engineering works) is missing, and finds non-compliance/refusal on that basis
· cites a specific comparator address and its planning reference (e.g. 'No.150 (ref: 04/2334/HOT)') to justify why a feature would not appear incongruous
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a basement lightwell or plant installation would actually be visible/prominent from the street or from neighbouring properties, given specific site features like boundary walls and garden depth
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a per-criterion compliance judgement against the specific lettered/numbered GPDO class provisions, not a single overall conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: documentary or drawn evidence (e.g. section drawings, planning history, aerial imagery) supporting a claimed construction date or engineering scope, placing the burden on the applicant where it is absent
“given the presence of a boundary wall and the large front garden area, the lightwell would not be readily viewable or prominant from the street”
20/2544/HOT
“the works would involve raising the parapet on the northern side elevation, which would be perceptible from the street given orientation”
20/1849/HOT
Measured from 51 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 51 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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, 2020–25. · 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 51 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.