Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersRose Sharkey
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Rose Sharkey.

Last recorded decision Aug 2024 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 93% across 68 decided planning applications, spanning 21 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer68 decisions93% 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 →
68
Applications
2021–24
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%90%2021100%2022100%2023100%2024
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate93% · 23rd 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 reports65 officer reports parsed
10%
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
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.

Trees & landscape
1.73× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.44× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.44× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.34× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.24× borough avg

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

Assigned Rose Sharkey 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 agent revised the opaque glass balustrade height of the proposed roof terrace to 1.70 metres to better protect neighbour privacy

21/AP/0959

The structure is clearly not suitable to be used as general residential accommodation, nor as an independent living unit. Its location, which requires access through the main house and garden, would preclude the latter

21/AP/1145

Measured from 65 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 65 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

13Other locations of tall buildings
23 times cited
HC1Paragraph Heritage
12 times cited
D4Good
10 times cited
P13Design of places
6 times cited
P14Design quality
5 times cited
P56Protection of amenity
5 times cited
P35Town and local centres
4 times cited
P18Efficient use of land
4 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–24.[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
23/AP/3557
S.73 Vary/Remove Conds/Minor Alterations
Approved
2024-04-04
23/AP/3557
S.73 Vary/Remove Conds/Minor Alterations
Approved
2024-04-04
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 68 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. DP9 Ltd
2. Knights
3. EBBA Architects
4. By Others
At a glance
OfficerRose Sharkey
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications68 (2021–24)
Approval rate93%
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, 2021–24. · 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 65 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.