Anthony Roberts.
Last recorded decision Dec 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 94% across 321 decided planning applications, spanning 23 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Southwark reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Roberts assesses rear/dormer extensions by directly comparing the proposal's impact against ALREADY EXISTING conditions at the boundary — an existing large extension on one side that already blocks light, an existing gap distance — rather than assessing the new development in isolation. He records specific design-team requests (set-in distance, roof material) and notes when a scheme proceeds despite not fully meeting them.
· measures a new extension's amenity impact against what ALREADY exists at that boundary (an existing large extension, an existing gap) rather than in isolation
· records the design and conservation team's specific requested changes (e.g. a named set-in distance, a roof material) and whether the applicant complied
· concludes that failure to meet a design team's specific request does not itself justify refusal when the impact is otherwise modest
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: what ALREADY exists at the shared boundary (an existing extension, an existing gap) as the baseline for judging new impact
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the design and conservation team's specific requested amendment (set-in, roof material) was met, and if not, whether that alone justifies refusal
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: technical/maintenance reasons an applicant gives for not following a design request (e.g. wind uplift ruling out roof tiles)
“Any loss of light would already exist from the large extension at No.11 which towers over the application site outrigger”
20/AP/0048
“for maintenance purposes his client did not want a flat roof due to the shallow pitch of the roof it is not possible to specify roofing tiles”
20/AP/0169
Measured from 257 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.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 257 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Southwark planning register and published decision notices, 2020–22. · methodology
- [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]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]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 257 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.