Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersGemma Williams
Planning Atlas›Southwark›Gemma Williams
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Gemma Williams.

Last recorded decision Nov 2023 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 91% across 106 decided planning applications, spanning 17 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer106 decisions91% 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 →
106
Applications
2020–23
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%96%202097%202175%202292%2023100%2024
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate91% · 30th 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 reports80 officer reports parsed
25%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
25%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
8%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
60%
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.

Precedent & consistency
3.57× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.99× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.44× borough avg
Bulk & massing
0.77× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.55× borough avg

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

Assigned Gemma Williams 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

“in the current application the terrace is proposed to only extend 800mm (excluding staircase) from the rear elevation, halving the previous length”

20/AP/0312

“The proposed side extension broadly follows the proportions and design of the recently consented side extensions for the neighbouring properties at 28 Ivydale Road (20/AP/2052), 95 Ivydale Road (19/AP/6614), 110 Ivydale Road (20/AP/1939) and 291 Ivydale Road (19/AP/1156)”

20/AP/2345

Measured from 80 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 80 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

13Other locations of tall buildings
16 times cited
P14Design quality
8 times cited
P20Conservation areas
8 times cited
P19Listed buildings and structures
7 times cited
P21Conservation of the historic environment and
7 times cited
HC1Paragraph Heritage
6 times cited
P56Protection of amenity
6 times cited
T4Assessing
5 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
13
89%
11
100%
10
60%
10
100%
8
100%
8
71%
8
86%
7
100%
6
100%
6
100%
5
100%
5
100%
4
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
13
89%
11
100%
10
60%
Show all 17 rows
10
100%
8
100%
8
71%
8
86%
7
100%
6
100%
6
100%
5
100%
5
100%
4
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[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/3316
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2024-01-24
23/AP/3260
Listed Building Consent
Withdrawn
2024-01-18
23/AP/3316
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2024-01-24
23/AP/3260
Listed Building Consent
Withdrawn
2024-01-18
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 106 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Mittelman Associates
2. Blakeney Leigh Ltd.
3. Burgess Architects Ltd
4. Austin Winkley & Associates
At a glance
OfficerGemma Williams
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications106 (2020–23)
Approval rate91%
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, 2020–23. · 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 80 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.