Development Intent
AtlasHillingdonOfficersAndrew Thornley
Case officer · Hillingdon Planning

Andrew Thornley.

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

A case officer at Hillingdon with an approval rate of 76% across 66 decided planning applications, spanning 20 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer66 decisions76% approvalSave
Hillingdon · 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 →
66
Applications
2020–23
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%100%202168%202292%2023
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate76% · 35th of 59
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 reports

Not filled in yet — this needs at least 20 of Andrew Thornley's own officer reports parsed, and their reports haven't reached that threshold in the parsing run. It fills automatically as parsing progresses; nothing is estimated in its place.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies cited most on decision notices for applications Andrew Thornley decided — 35 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

DMHB11Design of New DevelopmentHillingdon plan
6 times cited
DMHB14Trees and LandscapingHillingdon plan
6 times cited
DMT2Highways ImpactsHillingdon plan
5 times cited
DMT1Managing Transport ImpactsHillingdon plan
5 times cited
DMT6Vehicle ParkingHillingdon plan
5 times cited
SI1London Plan
5 times cited
D11London Plan
5 times cited
D14London Plan
5 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[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
76550/APP/2023/469
Planning Application
Approved
2023-05-03
76551/APP/2023/468
Planning Application
Approved
2023-05-03
76550/APP/2023/469
Planning Application
Approved
2023-05-03
76551/APP/2023/468
Planning Application
Approved
2023-05-03
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 66 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Jon Dingle Jon Dingle Ltd.
2. Mr Tom Roberts Progress Planning Waterside House
3. Mr James Baker Planning Potential Ltd. Magdalen House
4. Chris Palomba JSA Architects Ltd. Middle Shop Waltham Road Maidenhead SL6
At a glance
OfficerAndrew Thornley
BoroughHillingdon
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications66 (2020–23)
Approval rate76%
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 Hillingdon planning register and published decision notices, 2020–23. · 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 Hillingdon decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
  4. [4]Policy citations will be coded from officer reports against the adopted Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF — that parsing has not run for this borough yet.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.