Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersZaib Khan
Planning Atlas›Southwark›Zaib Khan
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Zaib Khan.

Recently active — last recorded decision Jun 2025

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 83% across 144 decided planning applications, spanning 23 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer144 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 →
144
Applications
2020–25
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%80%202083%202178%202290%202389%202489%2025100%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate83% · 57th 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 reports103 officer reports parsed
7%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
7%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
20%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
69%
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.

Transport & parking
1.99× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.43× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.35× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.34× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.19× borough avg

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

Assigned Zaib Khan 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 proposal would infringe the 45 degree line in elevation view due to height. However given the gap difference between both properties of approximately 1.4m it is considered this is sufficient to mitigate any detrimental impact on daylight and sunlight amenity”

20/AP/0013

“The rear dormer extension element of this application was omitted as the internal ceiling height would not ensure compliance with building control”

20/AP/0010

Measured from 103 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 103 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

13Other locations of tall buildings
26 times cited
P13Design of places
6 times cited
P14Design quality
6 times cited
P18Efficient use of land
6 times cited
P56Protection of amenity
6 times cited
P15Residential
5 times cited
P53Cycling
5 times cited
D4Good
3 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
11
67%
11
100%
11
70%
10
90%
10
67%
10
100%
9
83%
9
86%
8
75%
7
67%
6
100%
6
83%
5
80%
5
80%
4
100%
4
100%
3
100%
3
33%
3
100%
3
100%
2
100%
2
50%
2
100%
11
67%
11
100%
11
70%
Show all 23 rows
10
90%
10
67%
10
100%
9
83%
9
86%
8
75%
7
67%
6
100%
6
83%
5
80%
5
80%
4
100%
4
100%
3
100%
3
33%
3
100%
3
100%
2
100%
2
50%
2
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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/2912
Major application
Approved
2026-03-09
24/AP/2503
Minor application
Refused
2025-12-09
24/AP/2912
Major application
Approved
2026-03-09
24/AP/2503
Minor application
Refused
2025-12-09
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 144 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Tailored Living Solutions Limited
2. Potter Raper Limited
3. Rolfe Judd Planning
4. Baily Garner
At a glance
OfficerZaib Khan
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications144 (2020–25)
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, 2020–25. · 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 103 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.