Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersAbrar Sharif
Planning Atlas›Southwark›Abrar Sharif
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Abrar Sharif.

Last recorded decision Jun 2020 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 94% across 36 decided planning applications, spanning 13 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer36 decisions94% approvalSave
Southwark · 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 →
36
Applications
2020
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average

Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.

What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate94% · 20th of 79
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 reports29 officer reports parsed
13%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
4%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
10%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
49%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Southwark's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Southwark reports. Attention, not stance.

Bulk & massing
5.84× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.7× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.39× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.15× borough avg
Character & heritage
0.89× borough avg

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

Assigned Abrar Sharif 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

“There is a minimum of 2.02m footway clearance and a 0.25m clearance from carriageway for cyclists. The minimum clearance from the carriageway is less than the stipulated 0.45m ordinarily recommended”

20/AP/0158

“There is a full dormer roof extension on the adjoining No.22 property. This has gained planning enforcement immunity, i.e. by being there for more than 4 years”

20/AP/0215

Measured from 29 published Southwark 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 29 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

13Other locations of tall buildings
12 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
8
100%
6
100%
4
75%
4
75%
3
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
8
100%
6
100%
4
75%
Show all 13 rows
4
75%
3
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020.[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
20/AP/1760
Minor application
Approved
2020-08-25
20/AP/1657
Householder Application
Approved
2020-08-15
20/AP/1760
Minor application
Approved
2020-08-25
20/AP/1657
Householder Application
Approved
2020-08-15
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 36 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. TfL - Consents Team
2. MSB (PLANNING) Limited
3. Classic Lofts London
4. Maddox and Associates Ltd
At a glance
OfficerAbrar Sharif
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications36 (2020)
Approval rate94%
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 Southwark planning register and published decision notices, 2020. · 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 Southwark 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 29 published Southwark 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.