Gill Lambert.
Active — last recorded decision Dec 2024
A case officer at Bromley with an approval rate of 75% across 6 decided planning applications, spanning 6 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 Bromley reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Lambert's reports show a distinct sensitivity to town-centre office and Business Improvement Area (BIA) floorspace protection under Policy 84, weighing the loss of office space in a BIA against the countervailing consideration of housing supply loss under Policy 1 as two policies pulling in different directions on the same conversion scheme, rather than treating one as automatically dominant.
· on town-centre conversions, explicitly sets Policy 84's BIA office-floorspace protection against Policy 1's housing-supply protection as two competing policy pulls on the same scheme, rather than defaulting to one
· names the specific designated area (e.g. a named Business Improvement Area) a site sits within before applying the relevant protection policy, rather than a general town-centre reference
· frames a residential unit loss within a BIA conversion as a genuine but 'minor loss of housing' rather than either dismissing or overstating its weight
· which specific designated area (BIA or similar) a town-centre site sits within before applying the relevant protection policy
· an explicit weighing of competing policies (office floorspace protection vs housing supply) rather than treating one as automatically dominant
· whether a residential unit loss is realistically framed as minor or significant rather than a boilerplate statement either way
“Policy 84 of the Bromley Local Plan (BLP) states that redevelopment proposals in a BIA which result in the loss of Class B1(a) floorspace or which compromise the primary function of the BIA will not be permitted”
25/00854/FULL1
Measured from 50 published Bromley 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 50 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.
No named planning consultants on this officer's decided applications.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Bromley planning register and published decision notices, 2024. · 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 Bromley 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 50 published Bromley 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.