Development Intent
AtlasIslingtonOfficersAlastair Douglas
Case officer · Islington Planning

Alastair Douglas.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 92% across 156 decided planning applications, spanning 17 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer156 decisions92% approvalSave
Islington · 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 →
156
Applications
2025–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%86%202595%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate92% · 18th of 55
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 reports27 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
11%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
77%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Islington's average officer

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

Trees & landscape
3.96× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
2.42× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.61× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.61× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.54× borough avg

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

Assigned Alastair Douglas 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

Neither Units 10 nor 11 feature windows which would experience an unacceptable loss of outlook from the proposed development given their aspect facing away from the extension.

P2025/1570/FUL Full Planning Application 5 - 8 St Alban's Place, London, N1 3DQ Erection of 1-storey roof extension containing 1x 2 bed unit

Due to these respective separation distances and overall modest height of the outbuilding, it would not appear overbearing nor oppressive to neighbouring gardens, nor would it cause any unacceptable overshadowing.

P2025/3290/FUL & P/2025/3290/FUL Full Planning Application & Listed Building Consent Flat B, 306 Liverpool Road, London, N7 8PU Full Planning Application Erection of new garden room. Removal of redundant drainage pipes,

This projection is not excessive, and it would not cause an unacceptable loss of outlook to no.

P2025/3373/FUL Full Planning (Householder) 35 Crane Grove, London, N7 8LD Part reconstruction of existing rear two storey extension

Measured from 27 published Islington 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 27 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D1
4 times cited
D4Designing in Context
4 times cited
PLAN1Site appraisal, design principles and process
4 times cited
S1Delivering Sustainable Design
4 times cited
S2Sustainable Design and Construction
4 times cited
S3Sustainable Design Standards
4 times cited
S4Minimising greenhouse gas emissions
4 times cited
S5Energy Infrastructure
4 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[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
P2026/0264/FUL
Full Planning (Householder)
Withdrawn
2026-05-27
P2026/0265/LBC
Listed Building
Withdrawn
2026-05-27
P2026/0264/FUL
Full Planning (Householder)
Withdrawn
2026-05-27
P2026/0265/LBC
Listed Building
Withdrawn
2026-05-27
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 156 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Planning
2. Rolfe Judd Planning
At a glance
OfficerAlastair Douglas
BoroughIslington
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications156 (2025–26)
Approval rate92%
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 Islington planning register and published decision notices, 2025–26. · 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 Islington 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 27 published Islington 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.