Lauren Liu.
Last recorded decision Oct 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Sutton with an approval rate of 75% across 1,263 decided planning applications, spanning 26 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 Sutton reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Liu's caseload is dominated by loft conversions, garage conversions and modest side/rear extensions, and her reports are notably precise on measured dimensions — depth, width, height and setback from the eaves/boundary are stated to the centimetre in almost every design paragraph before a verdict is reached, and she frequently identifies 'the two main neighbouring properties to take into account' by house number at the start of the amenity assessment, rather than discussing neighbours generically. She has the highest refusal share of this volume group (45 of 1060 recorded), and her refusals concentrate on porches/dormers whose materials or bulk are 'out of character with the dwelling', judged against the specific detailing of adjoining properties in the same terrace, rather than a generic design objection.
· states every material dimension (depth, width, eaves height, ridge height, setback) to two decimal places before reaching a design verdict, rather than describing scale only qualitatively
· explicitly names 'the two main neighbouring properties to take into account' by house number at the opening of the amenity/neighbours paragraph, rather than discussing impact on neighbours generically
· on refusals, isolates the SPECIFIC failing detail (e.g. render material, an oversized dormer) rather than rejecting the whole scheme, and will separately confirm the rest of the proposal (parking, trees) is acceptable in the same report
· the exact measured depth, width, eaves height and setback distance for every extension or dormer element, cited to two decimal places
· the two specific neighbouring properties most affected, identified by house number, before assessing loss of light, outlook or privacy
· whether an existing garage already falls below the Sutton Local Plan's minimum garage dimension standard, which weakens an objection to its loss through conversion
“The rear dormer extension would measure 6.2 metres wide, have a depth of 3 metres and be set back from the eaves by 1.13 metres”
DM2020/00001
“it is considered the porch is excessively large and the materials, with particular regard to the white render on the walls and glazing to the entrance are out of character with the dwelling”
DM2020/00344
Measured from 1060 published Sutton 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 1060 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 26 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–24.[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 Sutton planning register and published decision notices, 2020–24. · 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 Sutton 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 1060 published Sutton 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.