Jack Meacher.
Active — last recorded decision Dec 2025
A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 83% across 332 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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 Islington reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Meacher's listed-building assessments repeatedly label each internal change as a 'neutral change' with 'no heritage benefit', a 'minor heritage benefit', or 'harmful to the planform' — a consistent three-way classification applied room by room. His non-heritage plant/signage reports are comparatively brief, closing quickly once an acoustic or design condition is proposed.
· classifies each internal listed-building alteration explicitly as neutral / minor heritage benefit / harmful to the planform
· flags where a submission lacks evidence to confirm whether an opening being 'reinstated' is genuinely historic
· closes plant/noise reports briefly once a standard noise condition or acoustic enclosure is proposed
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether documentary evidence is provided to confirm a 'reinstated' opening is genuinely historic before treating it as a heritage benefit
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an explicit neutral/benefit/harm classification for each internal change to a listed building
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a lightweight, transparent, or stepped-back detailing at the junction between an extension and the host building to establish subservience
“There is no evidence in the submission to confirm this is an existing opening that is reinstated. Without this information, it is not possible to assess if there is low level of harm to the listed fabric or if there is heritage benefit”
P2023/0093/FUL & P2023/0094/LBC
“The wall between the existing utility room and rear of the dining room is being opened to make a connection between a new wine room and study with steps that creep into the study space to compensate for the level difference. This is considered to be harmful to the planform of the listed building”
P2023/0093/FUL & P2023/0094/LBC
Measured from 43 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.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 43 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–25.[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 Islington planning register and published decision notices, 2022–25. · 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 — 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]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 43 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.