Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersCatherine Jeater
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Catherine Jeater.

Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 95% across 144 decided planning applications, spanning 20 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer144 decisions95% 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 →
144
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%89%202094%202197%2022100%2023100%2024100%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate95% · 16th 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 reports108 officer reports parsed
3%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
15%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
24%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
61%
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.

Character & heritage
2.99× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.81× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
0.82× borough avg
Trees & landscape
0.66× borough avg
Transport & parking
0.57× borough avg

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

Assigned Catherine Jeater 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

18/AP/2768 and 2787 established the principle of opening up the rear wall. There would be harm to the asset through loss of windows and doors, and original fabric; however it is not considered necessary to withhold permission due to the extant applications

20/AP/1310

Due to the COVID-19 outbreak and government restrictions on travel, a site visit was not undertaken. Officers consider that the information provided in the application was sufficient in detail to make an informed decision

20/AP/1052

Measured from 108 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 108 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

13Other locations of tall buildings
17 times cited
HC1Paragraph Heritage
17 times cited
P19Listed buildings and structures
12 times cited
P21Conservation of the historic environment and
12 times cited
P20Conservation areas
11 times cited
P13Design of places
10 times cited
P14Design quality
10 times cited
P15Residential
9 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
26/AP/0389
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2026-04-27
26/AP/0400
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2026-04-24
26/AP/0389
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2026-04-27
26/AP/0400
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2026-04-24
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 144 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Rolfe Judd Planning
2. Michael Trentham Architects
3. Braithwaite and Jackman
4. Mark Zudini Architecture + Design Ltd
At a glance
OfficerCatherine Jeater
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications144 (2020–26)
Approval rate95%
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, 2020–26. · 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 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 108 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.