Jake Shiels.
Active — last recorded decision Mar 2026
A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 78% across 395 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×.
Shiels handles larger and more complex casework in this corpus (a listed prison gatehouse, tall office buildings, protected strategic views) and writes long-form heritage-significance narratives establishing a building's history before assessing the proposal. Two related refusals on Colebrooke Row reuse near-identical significance paragraphs, then diverge into distinct, specific objections to each element proposed.
· sets out a building's detailed construction and alteration history (architects, dates, subsequent changes) before assessing the current proposal
· checks proposals against protected view corridors (e.g. Mayor's Protected Vista) as a distinct, separate consideration
· on paired/related applications for the same building, reuses the same significance assessment verbatim and then gives each a distinct, specific reason for objection
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a heritage asset's history and prior alterations are documented before judging further change
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a property is named on a conservation area's specific schedule of buildings permitted roof extensions
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposal is checked against protected view corridors, not just the immediate streetscene
“The application property is not within Schedule 3.2 of the CADG which would allow for a traditional roof extension and therefore the proposal is contrary to the CADG guidance”
P2021/3126/FUL & P2021/3159/LBC
“The site falls within the Mayor's Protected Vista from Parliament Hill summit to St Paul's Cathedral and Kenwood viewing gazebo to St Paul's Cathedral”
P2021/1775/FUL
Measured from 216 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 216 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 216 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.