Claire Collins.
Recently active — last recorded decision Aug 2025
A case officer at Bexley with an approval rate of 91% across 1,133 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 Bexley reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Collins' caseload is heavily weighted toward conservation-area applications (Old Bexley, Christ Church, Old Forge Way), and she is distinctive for reciting the specific Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP)'s own bulleted list of designating features verbatim before assessing a scheme — naming the individual listed buildings, architects (Kenneth Dalgliesh), and historic street patterns that justify the designation, rather than a generic 'preserves character' finding. Her approval rate is the highest of the coded officers (427/483, ~88%), reflecting a caseload concentrated in smaller householder extensions and outbuildings where she applies a settled, low-friction formula ('due to the subservient scale and form... visually acceptable within the streetscene... not considered that it would adversely affect the amenities') with minimal case-specific elaboration once the conservation-area check is satisfied.
· recites the specific CAAMP's own bulleted designating-features list (named architects, building types, historic street patterns) verbatim before assessing a conservation-area scheme, rather than a generic 'preserves character' finding
· applies a settled low-friction approval formula ('subservient scale and form...visually acceptable...not adversely affect the amenities') for straightforward householder schemes once the conservation-area/heritage check is satisfied
· treats outbuilding fenestration orientation (facing only into the garden) as the primary privacy safeguard, checked before scale or materials
· whether the specific CAAMP's own list of designating architectural/historic features (not a generic heritage test) is engaged by the proposal
· whether an outbuilding's only fenestration faces into the applicant's own garden, avoiding neighbour privacy loss regardless of scale
· whether the scale and form is 'subservient' relative to the host dwelling and existing similar additions in the streetscene
“Old Bexley Conservation Area - The summary of the special architectural or historic features of interest (which justified the designation of the Old Bexley conservation area) are listed within the Old Bexley Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP) as”
24/01421/FUL
“The only fenestration would face into the garden so there would be no harm to the privacy of any neighbouring properties”
24/02502/FUL
Measured from 483 published Bexley 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 483 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 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 Bexley 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 — Bexley'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 483 published Bexley 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.