Development Intent
AtlasHaveringOfficersVictoria Collins
Planning Atlas›Havering›Victoria Collins
Case officer · Havering Planning

Victoria Collins.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Havering with an approval rate of 46% across 486 decided planning applications, spanning 25 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer486 decisions46% approvalSave
Havering · 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 →
486
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%54%202036%202155%202249%202342%202442%202572%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate46% · 32nd of 34
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 reports104 officer reports parsed
—
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
—
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
4%
"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 Havering's average officer

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

Daylight & sunlight
1.25× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.13× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.01× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1× borough avg
Transport & parking
0.93× borough avg

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

Assigned Victoria Collins 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

“Therefore the proposed layout with its residential amenity impact would not comply with the requirement of Policy 9 (iv), therefore would be unacceptable.”

P0049.24 · recommendation: It is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason(s)

“Therefore, given that the proposals would not meet the distance requirement of 10m away from the junction, it would raise significant safety concerns and would be unacceptable.”

P0062.24 · recommendation: It is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for the reason(s) given at the end of the report

“As such the proposal is contrary to Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan and Section 5 and 8 of the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD 2011.”

P0105.24 · recommendation: It is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for the reason(s) given at the end of the report

Measured from 104 published Havering 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 104 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

26Urban design
44 times cited
7Residential design and amenity
41 times cited
D1
35 times cited
T6
34 times cited
24Parking provision and design
34 times cited
D4
32 times cited
34Managing pollution
5 times cited
T6.1
5 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
45
44%
40
49%
38
59%
38
52%
34
48%
26
43%
24
40%
23
64%
20
53%
19
69%
19
39%
18
35%
16
15%
16
38%
15
40%
15
46%
13
33%
12
25%
12
45%
11
36%
8
29%
7
43%
6
67%
6
60%
5
60%
45
44%
40
49%
38
59%
Show all 25 rows
38
52%
34
48%
26
43%
24
40%
23
64%
20
53%
19
69%
19
39%
18
35%
16
15%
16
38%
15
40%
15
46%
13
33%
12
25%
12
45%
11
36%
8
29%
7
43%
6
67%
6
60%
5
60%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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
P0452.26
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-04
P0349.26
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-05-21
P0452.26
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-04
P0349.26
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-05-21
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 486 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. ZAAVIA DESIGN LTD
2. Causeway Planning
3. Civils Consulting Ltd
4. - SMART SKILLS LTD
At a glance
OfficerVictoria Collins
BoroughHavering
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications486 (2020–26)
Approval rate46%
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 Havering planning register and published decision notices, 2020–26. · 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 — Havering's decision-notice parsing is limited coverage, so no borough or officer figure is shown.
  4. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 104 published Havering 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.