Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersGemma Perry
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Gemma Perry.

Last recorded decision Apr 2024 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 95% across 56 decided planning applications, spanning 19 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer56 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 →
56
Applications
2020–24
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%96%202191%2022100%2023100%2024
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate95% · 19th 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 reports53 officer reports parsed
31%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
8%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
13%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
74%
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.

Transport & parking
3.02× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
2.44× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
1.95× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.82× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.48× borough avg

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

Assigned Gemma Perry 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

the external noise levels for private amenity space. Given the surrounding residential context and small scale proposal, this condition is not deemed reasonable

21/AP/1174

design amendments have been sought to significantly reduce impacts on this tree in relation to the proposed ground works required to facilitate stepped access to the rear of the new dwelling

21/AP/1174

Measured from 53 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 53 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

P56Protection of amenity
10 times cited
P14Design quality
7 times cited
P13Design of places
6 times cited
P15Residential
6 times cited
P50Highways impacts
5 times cited
HC1Paragraph Heritage
4 times cited
13Other locations of tall buildings
4 times cited
P18Efficient use of land
4 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–24.[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
23/AP/0513
S.73 Vary/Remove Conds/Minor Alterations
Withdrawn
2025-01-28
20/AP/2953
Major application
Approved
2024-06-14
23/AP/0513
S.73 Vary/Remove Conds/Minor Alterations
Withdrawn
2025-01-28
20/AP/2953
Major application
Approved
2024-06-14
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 56 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Baily Garner
2. Southwark Council/Mitie
3. Rolfe Judd Planning
4. Potter Raper Ltd
At a glance
OfficerGemma Perry
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications56 (2020–24)
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, 2020–24. · 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 53 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.