Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersJames Holmes
Case officer · Southwark Planning

James Holmes.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 96% across 99 decided planning applications, spanning 21 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer99 decisions96% 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 →
99
Applications
2024–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%100%202498%202591%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate96% · 12th 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 reports81 officer reports parsed
6%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
3%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
10%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
66%
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.

Noise & disturbance
1.5× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.33× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.27× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.1× borough avg
Bulk & massing
0.93× borough avg

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

Assigned James Holmes 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 erroneous claim that the development would be shielded from view by an advertising board on Bestwood Street (Google Streetview images show that this was removed in 2015 or 2016)

24/AP/2835

Similar dormer extensions have already been built at 174, 176 and 180 Upland Road, so the proposed dormers would be in keeping with the pattern of development in the immediate vicinity

24/AP/3531

Measured from 81 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 81 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

P13Design of places
47 times cited
P14Design quality
45 times cited
P56Protection of amenity
45 times cited
P20Conservation areas
16 times cited
P66Reducing noise pollution and enhancing acoustic environment
12 times cited
P60Biodiversity
9 times cited
P19Listed buildings and structures
9 times cited
P68Reducing flood risk
8 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–26.[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/0115
Minor application
Approved
2026-06-09
26/AP/0968
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-09
26/AP/0115
Minor application
Approved
2026-06-09
26/AP/0968
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-09
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 99 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Resi Design Ltd
2. Home Tales
3. Tom Dunn Architects Ltd
4. MAXIM ARCHITECTURE LTD
At a glance
OfficerJames Holmes
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications99 (2024–26)
Approval rate96%
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, 2024–26. · 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 81 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.