Development Intent
AtlasLambethOfficersRowena Folkes
Case officer · Lambeth Planning

Rowena Folkes.

Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026

A case officer at Lambeth with an approval rate of 82% across 405 decided planning applications, spanning 19 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer405 decisions82% 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 →
405
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%79%202066%202385%202486%202584%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate82% · 31st 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 Rowena Folkes'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 Rowena Folkes decided — 311 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

Q11Building alterations and extensionsLambeth plan
250 times cited
Q5Local distinctivenessLambeth plan
197 times cited
Q8Design quality: construction detailingLambeth plan
177 times cited
Q2AmenityLambeth plan
103 times cited
Q22Conservation areasLambeth plan
73 times cited
Q20Statutory listed buildingsLambeth plan
34 times cited
H5Housing standardsLambeth plan
21 times cited
H6Residential conversionsLambeth plan
15 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

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
25/03798/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-05-21
26/00339/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-05-18
25/03798/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-05-21
26/00339/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-05-18
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 405 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Redwoods Projects
2. Resi
3. Design Team
4. Verve Planning Limited
At a glance
OfficerRowena Folkes
BoroughLambeth
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications405 (2020–26)
Approval rate82%
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, 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 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.