Development Intent
AtlasIslingtonOfficersAlex Mccombie
Planning Atlas›Islington›Alex McCombie
Case officer · Islington Planning

Alex McCombie.

Last recorded decision Jun 2021 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 89% across 171 decided planning applications, spanning 17 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer171 decisions89% 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 →
171
Applications
2020–21
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%91%202086%2021
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate89% · 25th 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 reports20 officer reports parsed
50%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
50%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
20%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
87%
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.

Noise & disturbance
2.29× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.22× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.21× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.14× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
0.91× borough avg

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

Assigned Alex McCombie 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

“Overall, it is considering that the noise assessment provides insufficient information to adequately assess the noise and vibration impacts for future occupiers of the proposed unit failing to comply with Policy DM3.7 of the DMP Policies (2013).”

P2020/0664/FUL

“Therefore, the impacts of the development would significantly and materially harm the amenity levels of these two existing units to a totally unacceptable degree.”

P2020/0664/FUL

“The NPPF states local planning authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.”

P2020/0664/FUL

Measured from 20 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 20 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

CS8
3 times cited
DM2.1
3 times cited
H2New and existing conventional housing
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
16
94%
15
87%
11
91%
11
100%
9
100%
8
88%
7
100%
7
100%
6
83%
5
40%
4
100%
3
33%
3
67%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
16
94%
15
87%
11
91%
Show all 17 rows
11
100%
9
100%
8
88%
7
100%
7
100%
6
83%
5
40%
4
100%
3
33%
3
67%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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
P2021/1508/FUL
Full Planning (Householder)
Approved
2021-08-12
P2021/1566/FUL
Full Planning (Householder)
Approved
2021-08-12
P2021/1508/FUL
Full Planning (Householder)
Approved
2021-08-12
P2021/1566/FUL
Full Planning (Householder)
Approved
2021-08-12
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 171 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Potter Raper Ltd
2. Thamil Community Law Centre Ltd Mr A. Sathyaseelan
3. AJK Drawing services ltd
4. Stadia Architectural Design
At a glance
OfficerAlex McCombie
BoroughIslington
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications171 (2020–21)
Approval rate89%
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, 2020–21. · 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 20 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.