Development Intent
AtlasSuttonOfficersSam Brodie
Planning Atlas›Sutton›Sam Brodie
Case officer · Sutton Planning

Sam Brodie.

Last recorded decision Jan 2023 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Sutton with an approval rate of 73% across 152 decided planning applications, spanning 19 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer152 decisions73% 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 →
152
Applications
2022–23
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%78%202262%2023
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate73% · 8th 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 reports175 officer reports parsed
30%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
2%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
7%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
35%
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
3.48× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.99× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.84× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.65× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.07× borough avg

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

Assigned Sam Brodie 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 proposed extension would have a depth of 6.115m which is more than No. 43 which was approved planning permission for a 6m rear extension under Prior Approval”

DM2022/01284

“the overall massing will be sufficient to appear suitably subordinate to, and respect the existing character of, the application property”

DM2022/01032

Measured from 175 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 175 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

29Protecting Amenity
112 times cited
28Character and Design
108 times cited
D12
108 times cited
30Heritage
6 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
16
69%
15
67%
14
50%
14
93%
13
92%
12
83%
11
50%
9
63%
9
86%
8
63%
5
67%
5
100%
4
67%
4
0%
4
100%
3
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
50%
16
69%
15
67%
14
50%
Show all 19 rows
14
93%
13
92%
12
83%
11
50%
9
63%
9
86%
8
63%
5
67%
5
100%
4
67%
4
0%
4
100%
3
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
50%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–23.[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
DM2022/02192
Householder Application
Approved
2023-03-08
DM2023/00034
Householder Application
Approved
2023-03-08
DM2022/02192
Householder Application
Approved
2023-03-08
DM2023/00034
Householder Application
Approved
2023-03-08
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 152 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Osborne Property Service Limited
2. Happy Building
3. WAD ASSOCIATES LTD.
4. M Architecture Planning Ltd
At a glance
OfficerSam Brodie
BoroughSutton
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications152 (2022–23)
Approval rate73%
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, 2022–23. · 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 175 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.