Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersMarco Chan
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Marco Chan.

Recently active — last recorded decision Feb 2025

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 83% across 26 decided planning applications, spanning 13 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer26 decisions83% 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 →
26
Applications
2024–25
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%85%202482%2025
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate83% · 55th 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 reports24 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
57%
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.

Character & heritage
4.11× borough avg
Materials & detailing
2.99× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.01× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
0.4× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
0.17× borough avg

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

Assigned Marco Chan 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

Heritage impacts of the proposed enclosure and building were assessed previously under approved temporary permissions 17/AP/3345, 18/AP/1963 and 21/AP/1439

24/AP/1538

The existing flue on the application property is unauthorised, and in accordance with para. 202 of the NPPF (2023) this cannot form a precedent given the harm is already done on the Listed Building

24/AP/2414

Measured from 24 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 24 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

P13Design of places
3 times cited
P14Design quality
3 times cited
P19Listed buildings and structures
3 times cited
P20Conservation areas
3 times cited
P21Conservation of the historic environment and
3 times cited
P56Protection of amenity
3 times cited
P15Residential
2 times cited
P57Open Space
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–25.[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
24/AP/3658
Listed Building Consent
Refused
2025-02-28
25/AP/0190
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2025-02-28
24/AP/3658
Listed Building Consent
Refused
2025-02-28
25/AP/0190
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2025-02-28
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 26 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Archic
2. Freedom Homes Architects
3. Robert Potz Architects
4. Capital Building SurveysLtd
At a glance
OfficerMarco Chan
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications26 (2024–25)
Approval rate83%
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, 2024–25. · 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 24 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.