Marc Davis.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 85% across 706 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×.
Davis's corpus includes larger commercial/tall-building casework and he quotes Design Review Panel commentary in short note form before giving the officer's own response to each point raised. He shows CIL liability arithmetic explicitly and, in the one refusal read, builds the case across several distinctly labelled technical grounds (daylight, housing standards, refuse, accessibility, fire) rather than a single design objection.
· quotes Design Review Panel feedback in short note form, then responds to each point individually
· shows CIL charge arithmetic explicitly (rate x floorspace = liability) rather than stating a conclusion only
· in a refusal, states that non-design benefits (accessibility, cycle parking, refuse) are 'not considered to outweigh' the design concerns, rather than treating them as separate pass/fail items
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a stated response to each individual Design Review Panel comment, not just a summary of DRP support
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: full VSC/NSL testing across all potentially affected windows, with a numeric pass/fail count
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether ancillary benefits (accessibility, cycle parking) are explicitly weighed against, not substituted for, an unresolved design objection
“The report provides detailed results of surveys of 323 tested windows, and confirms that 318 of the windows (98%) would meet the application of the BRE guidelines”
P2021/2252/FUL
“The provision of additional cycle parking spaces is welcomed and is considered to be a benefit of the scheme … Nevertheless, the adequate cycle parking provision is considered not to outweigh the design concerns relating to the proposal”
P2021/2252/FUL
Measured from 307 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 307 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 307 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.