Development Intent
AtlasBarking and DagenhamOfficersClarice De Vries
Case officer · Barking And Dagenham Planning

Clarice De Vries.

Recently active — last recorded decision Jul 2025

A case officer at Barking And Dagenham with an approval rate of 65% across 34 decided planning applications, spanning 16 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer34 decisions65% approvalSave
Barking And Dagenham · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
34
Applications
2024–25
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average

Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.

What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate65% · 17th of 29
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports60 officer reports parsed
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
3%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
58%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Barking And Dagenham's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Barking And Dagenham reports. Attention, not stance.

Character & heritage
0.68× borough avg
Materials & detailing
0.55× borough avg
Bulk & massing
0.53× borough avg
Transport & parking
0.2× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.15× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

Assigned Clarice De Vries on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

there is a live application for a proposed single storey rear extension (reference: 24/01727/PRIEXT). The proposed extension has not formed part of the consideration of the proposals under this certificate

24/01746/CLUP

The combined footprint of the existing front porch and rear conservatory and the proposed outbuilding would be 37.42m2. which is less than 50% of the total curtilage

24/01746/CLUP

Measured from 60 published Barking And Dagenham 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 60 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D3
1 times cited
D4
1 times cited
D5
1 times cited
G1
1 times cited
G2
1 times cited
G5
1 times cited
G6
1 times cited
G8
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–25.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
25/00997/HSE
Householder Planning Permission
Refused
2025-08-07
25/00946/HSE
Householder Planning Permission
Approved
2025-07-29
25/00997/HSE
Householder Planning Permission
Refused
2025-08-07
25/00946/HSE
Householder Planning Permission
Approved
2025-07-29
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 34 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Livarch Ltd
2. dcj surveying
3. BXM DESIGNS LTD
4. ARKS DESIGN STUDIO LIMITED
At a glance
OfficerClarice De Vries
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications34 (2024–25)
Approval rate65%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Barking And Dagenham planning register and published decision notices, 2024–25. · methodology
  2. [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. [3]Condition load — mean effective conditions attached to Barking And Dagenham decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
  4. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 60 published Barking And Dagenham 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.