Development Intent
AtlasLambethOfficersMichael Clawson
Case officer · Lambeth Planning

Michael Clawson.

Active — last recorded decision Nov 2025

A case officer at Lambeth with an approval rate of 77% across 311 decided planning applications, spanning 15 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer311 decisions77% approvalSave
Lambeth · 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 →
311
Applications
2021–25
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%80%202267%202372%202488%202583%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate77% · 43rd of 72
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 reports

Not filled in yet — this needs at least 20 of Michael Clawson's own officer reports parsed, and their reports haven't reached that threshold in the parsing run. It fills automatically as parsing progresses; nothing is estimated in its place.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies cited most on decision notices for applications Michael Clawson decided — 271 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

Q5Local distinctivenessLambeth plan
174 times cited
Q11Building alterations and extensionsLambeth plan
174 times cited
Q8Design quality: construction detailingLambeth plan
143 times cited
Q2AmenityLambeth plan
122 times cited
Q22Conservation areasLambeth plan
104 times cited
Q20Statutory listed buildingsLambeth plan
50 times cited
Q13Cycle storageLambeth plan
30 times cited
T1Sustainable travelLambeth plan
28 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–25.[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
24/02840/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-04-16
25/02258/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-04-07
24/02840/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-04-16
25/02258/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-04-07
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 311 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Andrew Paine Architecture
2. City Planning
3. Hub Architecture Ltd
4. Hollins Planning Ltd
At a glance
OfficerMichael Clawson
BoroughLambeth
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications311 (2021–25)
Approval rate77%
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 Lambeth planning register and published decision notices, 2021–25. · 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 Lambeth decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
  4. [4]Policy citations will be coded from officer reports against the adopted Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF — that parsing has not run for this borough yet.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.