Calum Pollock.
Last recorded decision Aug 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 92% across 208 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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 Islington reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Pollock's reports lean on specific BRE daylight/sunlight test numbers (VSC percentages, daylight distribution results) laid out window-by-window, and he distinguishes primary from secondary windows when a test fails. He works through neighbour objections under named sub-headings (Party Wall, Overshadowing, Overlooking, Other Issues) rather than folding them into a single amenity paragraph.
· sets out individual VSC/daylight-distribution figures per window before drawing a conclusion
· separates overshadowing, over-dominance and overlooking into distinct labelled sub-sections rather than one amenity paragraph
· explicitly addresses non-planning objections (Party Wall Act, cumulative impact from a neighbouring Certificate of Lawfulness) to explain why they are or are not material
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: numerical BRE daylight/sunlight evidence broken down by individual window, not just a summary conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a roof extension matches the traditional materials/profile of the specific terrace it sits in
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: separate treatment of each neighbour amenity concern (overlooking, overshadowing, over-dominance) rather than a blended assessment
“Officers acknowledge that 2 windows facing onto the extension and serving the kitchen of No 40 would fail the VSC test. Whilst this is regrettable, these windows are located on the flank wall and represent secondary windows”
P2022/2470/FUL
“BRE Guidelines states 'Recommended privacy distances are usually less than this but vary widely, typically from 18 m up to 35 m.' at 25m and 32m away from the windows of the property to the rear the proposed development of the mansard is not considered to result in an unacceptable loss of privacy”
P2022/2470/FUL
Measured from 90 published Islington 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 90 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–24.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Islington planning register and published decision notices, 2022–24. · 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 Islington 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 90 published Islington 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.