Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersNicolette Harriott
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Nicolette Harriott.

Last recorded decision Dec 2021 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 97% across 63 decided planning applications, spanning 17 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer63 decisions97% 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 →
63
Applications
2020–21
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%100%202098%2021100%20220%2025
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate97% · 11th 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 reports46 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.

Privacy & overlooking
2.27× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.75× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.62× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.23× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.22× borough avg

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

Assigned Nicolette Harriott 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

No site visit was undertaken due to Covid-19 however officers have made a reasonable assessment of the sire and its surroundings using Google StreetView, ariel photography and the applicants submission documents which include photos of the site

20/AP/2885

The height of the wall would also reach 2.3 metres which is lower than that of the existing party wall and therefore would not cause any impacts for No.19 Zenoria Street and their access to daylight

20/AP/2691

Measured from 46 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 46 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

13Other locations of tall buildings
34 times cited
D4Good
14 times cited
HC1Paragraph Heritage
6 times cited
12- Sports facilities
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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
21/AP/2434
Minor application
Refused
2025-06-09
21/AP/3260
Minor application
Approved
2022-01-31
21/AP/2434
Minor application
Refused
2025-06-09
21/AP/3260
Minor application
Approved
2022-01-31
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 63 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Resi
2. ANDERSON NORTH PARTNERSHIP
3. ROK Planning
4. CANOPY PLANNING SERVICES LTD
At a glance
OfficerNicolette Harriott
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications63 (2020–21)
Approval rate97%
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, 2020–21. · 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 46 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.