Glenn Ruane.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 77% across 278 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×.
Ruane handles a distinctly commercial/major-applications caseload — shopfront and change-of-use schemes assessed on odour, noise and servicing detail rather than residential daylight/sunlight, and larger residential schemes worked through density-per-hectare figures against Core Strategy thresholds. He is willing to refuse where technical information (ventilation specification, noise mitigation) is genuinely missing rather than assumed acceptable.
· on commercial change-of-use schemes, requires specific technical detail (air velocity, carbon filters, duct termination, noise mitigation) before accepting a ventilation/extraction proposal, and refuses where it is absent
· states the proposal's density in habitable rooms per hectare against the Core Strategy's numeric threshold for the zone
· lists each objection topic raised by name before addressing them in turn
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: specific ventilation/extraction technical detail (air velocity, filter type, duct termination) before accepting a commercial odour mitigation scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the proposal's density in habitable rooms per hectare set directly against the applicable Core Strategy threshold
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a scheme sits below the unit-count threshold that would trigger an affordable housing contribution
“Limited information has been provided as to the nature of the proposed ventilation equipment. No information has been provided as to air velocity, carbon filters, or duct termination”
20/AP/0113
“the proposal would equate to 1479 habitable rooms per hectare (18 habitable rooms, plus an equivalent of 5.8 habitable rooms for the office space over 0.0161sqm), which would exceed the density requirements of the Central Activities Zone (650 to 1,100 per ha)”
20/AP/0570
Measured from 253 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 253 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 253 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.