Development Intent
AtlasIslingtonOfficersCatherine Holness
Case officer · Islington Planning

Catherine Holness.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 88% across 225 decided planning applications, spanning 17 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer225 decisions88% 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 →
225
Applications
2022–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%83%202488%202587%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate88% · 27th 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 reports24 officer reports parsed
100%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
100%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
4%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
84%
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.

Energy & sustainability
2.75× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.88× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.49× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.21× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.14× borough avg

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

Assigned Catherine Holness 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

The closest habitable window would be 2.50m away to the north side and it is not thought from this angle that the impacts would be unacceptable.

P2024/3654/FUL · recommendation: Approve with Conditions

Policy DH5 of the local plan states that All development proposals which have the potential to cause or exacerbate unacceptable noise and vibration impacts on land uses and occupiers in the locality must fully assess such impacts, with reference to relevant noise thresholds set out in Appendix 2.

P2025/1246/FUL Full Planning (Householder) Flat C, 72 Hanley Road, London, N4 3DR Extension of existing second floor roof terrace with frosted glass balustrade to sides

The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the CA and there would be no public benefit to outweigh this harm.

P2025/2941/FUL Full Planning (Householder) 30 Pyrland Road, London, N5 2JD Proposed mansard roof extension with rooflights

Measured from 24 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 24 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

H1Thriving communities
4 times cited
S5Energy Infrastructure
4 times cited
S6Managing heat risk
4 times cited
S7Improving Air Quality
4 times cited
S8Flood Risk Management
4 times cited
S9Integrated Water Management and Sustainable Drainage
4 times cited
S10Circular Economy and Adaptive Design
4 times cited
S4Minimising greenhouse gas emissions
3 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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
P2026/0424/FUL
Full Planning Application
Approved
2026-06-01
P2026/1367/FUL
Full Planning (Householder)
2026-05-29
P2026/0424/FUL
Full Planning Application
Approved
2026-06-01
P2026/1367/FUL
Full Planning (Householder)
2026-05-29
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 225 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Environment and Planning Service
2. Project Coordinator
3. Maddox Planning
4. Detaile Planning Ltd
At a glance
OfficerCatherine Holness
BoroughIslington
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications225 (2022–26)
Approval rate88%
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, 2022–26. · 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 24 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.