Development Intent
AtlasIslingtonOfficersNathan Stringer
Case officer · Islington Planning

Nathan Stringer.

Last recorded decision May 2020 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 70% across 33 decided planning applications, spanning 12 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer33 decisions70% approvalSave
Islington · 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 →
33
Applications
2020
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average

Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.

What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate70% · 54th of 55
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 reports22 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
100%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
88%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Islington's average officer

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

Precedent & consistency
10.1× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.61× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.5× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.35× borough avg
Materials & detailing
0.84× borough avg

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

Assigned Nathan Stringer 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

Due to the location of the proposed extension at roof level, its setback from the rear elevation and relatively low height, it is unlikely to result in unacceptable loss of light or overbearing impacts on neighbouring properties to the rear or lower units.

P2020/0483/FUL

Overall, it is considered that the proposed lower ground floor level rear and infill extension would represent a contrived and incongruous addition which would be unacceptable in detailed design, scale, massing and depth.

P2020/0536/FUL

Policy 7.6 of the London Plan requires buildings and structures not to cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy and overshadowing, in particular.

P2020/0929/FUL

Measured from 22 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 22 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DM2.1
7 times cited
CS9
5 times cited
CS13
1 times cited
CS7
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020.[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
P2020/0023/FUL
Full Planning (Householder)
Approved
2020-08-14
P2020/0098/LBC
Listed Building
Approved
2020-08-14
P2020/0023/FUL
Full Planning (Householder)
Approved
2020-08-14
P2020/0098/LBC
Listed Building
Approved
2020-08-14
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 33 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Darren Oldfield Architects Ltd
2. Rolfe Judd Planning
At a glance
OfficerNathan Stringer
BoroughIslington
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications33 (2020)
Approval rate70%
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 Islington planning register and published decision notices, 2020. · 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 Islington decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
  4. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 22 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.