Development Intent
AtlasIslingtonOfficersThomas Broomhall
Case officer · Islington Planning

Thomas Broomhall.

Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026

A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 79% across 14 decided planning applications, spanning 6 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer14 decisions79% 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 →
14
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%0%2020100%2021100%202267%2023100%2024100%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate79% · 44th 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 reports36 officer reports parsed
29%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
57%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
3%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
65%
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.

Transport & parking
3.34× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
3.3× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
2.24× borough avg
Trees & landscape
0.98× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.83× borough avg

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

Assigned Thomas Broomhall 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

London Plan policy 7.6 identifies that buildings should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of residential buildings in respect of matters including privacy and overshadowing.

P2020/2232/FUL

Therefore the proposal fails to demonstrate that the development would contribute to balanced and sustainable communities.

P2020/2232/FUL

In the initially submitted application, the covering letter for the proposal states that: ‘the proposed scheme will not have detrimental effect on the local character of the area or cause unacceptable adverse impacts on the local environment and amenity’.

P2023/1345/FUL · recommendation: Approve with conditions

Measured from 36 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 36 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

R6Maintaining and enhancing Islington’s unique retail character
2 times cited
CS12
1 times cited
CS5
1 times cited
CS8
1 times cited
CS9
1 times cited
CS10
1 times cited
SP2King’s Cross and Pentonville Road
1 times cited
R1Retail, leisure and services, culture and visitor accommodation
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
P2024/0844/FUL
Full Planning Application
Approved
2026-02-13
P2024/0844/FUL
Full Planning Application
Approved
2026-02-13
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 14 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
At a glance
OfficerThomas Broomhall
BoroughIslington
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications14 (2020–26)
Approval rate79%
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, 2020–26. · 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 36 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.