Development Intent
AtlasSuttonOfficersAlexandra Lee
Planning Atlas›Sutton›Alexandra Lee
Case officer · Sutton Planning

Alexandra Lee.

Last recorded decision Apr 2022 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Sutton with an approval rate of 65% across 73 decided planning applications, spanning 22 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer73 decisions65% approvalSave
Sutton · 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 →
73
Applications
2021–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average

Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.

What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate65% · 14th of 18
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 reports69 officer reports parsed
15%
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 Sutton's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Sutton reports. Attention, not stance.

Bulk & massing
2.42× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.5× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.5× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.31× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.31× borough avg

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

Assigned Alexandra Lee 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

“its cramped appearance within a constrained site ... that would appear as an overly prominent and incongruous addition in this stretch of Chatsworth Road and at this corner location”

DM2021/01789

“The excessive prominence forward of the established front building line of Stoughton Avenue would significantly diminish the sense of openness along Stoughton Avenue”

DM2021/01789

Measured from 69 published Sutton 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 69 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D12
34 times cited
29Protecting Amenity
33 times cited
28Character and Design
28 times cited
30Heritage
8 times cited
G6
8 times cited
37Parking
7 times cited
D6
2 times cited
31Carbon and Energy
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
15
50%
11
50%
4
100%
4
67%
4
100%
4
25%
3
67%
3
50%
3
67%
3
100%
3
100%
2
50%
2
100%
2
50%
2
100%
2
100%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%
1
0%
1
–
1
–
15
50%
11
50%
4
100%
Show all 22 rows
4
67%
4
100%
4
25%
3
67%
3
50%
3
67%
3
100%
3
100%
2
50%
2
100%
2
50%
2
100%
2
100%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%
1
0%
1
–
1
–

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–22.[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
DM2022/00120
Householder Application
Refused
2022-09-02
DM2022/00062
Householder Application
Approved
2022-07-27
DM2022/00120
Householder Application
Refused
2022-09-02
DM2022/00062
Householder Application
Approved
2022-07-27
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 73 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. CANOPY PLANNING SERVICES LTD
2. Phi Architectural Services Ltd.
3. MM Planning and drawings
4. happy building
At a glance
OfficerAlexandra Lee
BoroughSutton
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications73 (2021–22)
Approval rate65%
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 Sutton planning register and published decision notices, 2021–22. · 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 Sutton 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 69 published Sutton 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.