Ibrahim Azam.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 96% across 614 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×.
Azam's reports work through neighbour amenity impact as a fixed three-part checklist — Privacy, Daylight/sunlight, Sense of openness and quality of outlook — for each affected boundary in turn, almost always framed around a specific eaves height in metres. A recurring pattern across his corpus is a negotiated reduction: the applicant is asked to cut the eaves height (e.g. from 3.19m to 2.6m, or a roof ridge raise from 400mm to 200mm) mid-application to mitigate daylight/sunlight impact on a named neighbour before the report recommends grant.
· splits neighbour amenity into three named sub-headings (Privacy / Daylight-sunlight / Sense of openness and quality of outlook) addressed boundary-by-boundary
· cites the exact proposed eaves height in metres for each affected neighbour rather than a qualitative description
· records where the applicant was asked to reduce a specific dimension (eaves height, roof ridge raise) mid-application to mitigate a named neighbour's daylight/sunlight before recommending grant
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact eaves height in metres at each affected boundary, not a general design description
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether roof lights sit at an angle giving only upward-facing views, ruling out overlooking
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a mid-application dimension reduction was needed to protect a specific named neighbour's daylight/sunlight
“the applicant was requested to reduce the height at the eaves from 3.19 metres to 2.6 metres as to reduce the impact upon daylight/sunlight of the adjoining property at No.78 Melbourne Grove”
20/AP/3290
“the proposal originally involved the raising of the roof ridge by 400mm, however, the applicants decided to reduce this to 200mm”
20/AP/3353
Measured from 597 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 597 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 597 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.