Daniel Jeffries.
Last recorded decision Oct 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 74% across 293 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×.
Jeffries' reports open almost every listed-building case by citing the specific statutory sections (16(2), 66(1), 72(1) of the 1990 Act) before any design assessment, and he works through internal alterations floor-by-floor when a listed interior is involved. He also tracks recent planning/appeal history closely, setting a current proposal directly against the reasons for refusal or appeal findings on the same site.
· opens conservation-area/listed-building reports with the specific Act sections engaged (16(2), 66(1), 72(1)) before discussing design
· assesses internal listed-building works level-by-level (lower ground, upper ground, first floor) as separate labelled sections
· cross-references a site's own recent refusal or appeal decision paragraph-by-paragraph when a resubmission follows it
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a floor-by-floor account of which historic fabric is retained, repaired, or lost in a listed building
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: direct comparison to the specific reasons for refusal or Inspector's findings on any prior application for the same site
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: confirmation from Building Control/HSE on fire safety materials before internal listed-building works are accepted
“in accordance with Section 72, 16 and 66 of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the proposal is required to preserve the visual appearance and historic character of the heritage assets”
P2020/3452/FUL & P2020/3494/LBC
“One of the reasons for refusal of application Ref P2021/1942/FUL was in relation to the design of the dormer and roof terrace, due its their inappropriate scale, detailed design, materials, bulk, siting and appearance would form a dominant and discordant addition”
P2021/3075/FUL
Measured from 117 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 117 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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, 2020–22. · 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 117 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.