Development Intent
AtlasLambethOfficersSenan Seaton Kelly
Case officer · Lambeth Planning

Senan Seaton Kelly.

Active — last recorded decision Nov 2025

A case officer at Lambeth with an approval rate of 89% across 138 decided planning applications, spanning 12 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer138 decisions89% 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 →
138
Applications
2023–25
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%81%202493%202590%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate89% · 17th 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 Senan Seaton Kelly'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 Senan Seaton Kelly decided — 117 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

Q11Building alterations and extensionsLambeth plan
93 times cited
Q8Design quality: construction detailingLambeth plan
88 times cited
Q5Local distinctivenessLambeth plan
86 times cited
Q22Conservation areasLambeth plan
33 times cited
Q2AmenityLambeth plan
32 times cited
SI1London Plan
14 times cited
NPPFNPPF
5 times cited
EN4Sustainable design and constructionLambeth plan
4 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–25.[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
25/00128/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-04-22
25/03410/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-02-06
25/00128/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-04-22
25/03410/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-02-06
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 138 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Bluelime
2. Faithorn Farrell Timms LLP
3. Resi Design Ltd
4. Town Planning Bureau
At a glance
OfficerSenan Seaton Kelly
BoroughLambeth
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications138 (2023–25)
Approval rate89%
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, 2023–25. · 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.