William Tucker.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 95% across 156 decided planning applications, spanning 22 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×.
Tucker's commercial/retail-frontage reports track Protected Shopping Frontage vacancy-rate statistics and cite the specific Southwark Plan retail policies (P32/P35/P37) that a change of use is tested against. His residential amenity write-ups measure privacy in terms of window height above finished floor level rather than distance alone.
· cites the current Protected Shopping Frontage Survey vacancy rate for the specific frontage as the factual basis for a retail change-of-use judgement
· measures replacement window privacy impact by height above finished floor level (e.g. 1.7 metres) rather than boundary distance alone
· states cycle-parking requirements as an explicit spaces-per-square-metre calculation comparing the London Plan and Southwark's own (stricter) Local Plan rate
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the current vacancy rate on the relevant Protected Shopping Frontage as the evidence base for a retail change-of-use judgement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the height above finished floor level of any new or altered side-elevation window bearing on privacy
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: cycle-parking provision calculated against Southwark's own Local Plan rate where it is stricter than the London Plan's
“The latest Protected Shopping Frontage Survey confirms the vacancy rate of Lower Road and Plough Way to be 13%”
23/AP/2551
“Southwark's Local Plan requires a greater capacity for cycle parking than the London Plan, requiring 1 space per 45 square metres rather than 1 space per 75 square metres”
23/AP/2551
Measured from 179 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 179 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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, 2022–26. · 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 179 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.