Development Intent
AtlasIslingtonOfficersRoss Harvey
Planning Atlas›Islington›Ross Harvey
Case officer · Islington Planning

Ross Harvey.

Last recorded decision Jul 2024 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 77% across 522 decided planning applications, spanning 17 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer522 decisions77% 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 →
522
Applications
2020–24
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%71%202075%202179%202279%202379%2024
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate77% · 47th 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 reports268 officer reports parsed
17%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
6%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
6%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
70%
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.

Bulk & massing
1.46× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.08× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.05× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.04× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
0.9× borough avg

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

Assigned Ross Harvey 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

“REASON: The proposed redevelopment of No's. 270 and 272 Holloway Road by reason of its excessive siting, bulk, massing, height and depth would represent a discordant dominant form of development”

P2020/3352/FUL

“Flats 1 to 3 within no.270 Holloway Road would fail to meet the minimum space standards for a 2 bedroom 4 person dwellinghouse”

P2020/3352/FUL

Measured from 268 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 268 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4Designing in Context
148 times cited
CS8
141 times cited
CS9
112 times cited
DM2.1
96 times cited
D1
91 times cited
HC1
89 times cited
PLAN1Site appraisal, design principles and process
70 times cited
DM2.3
57 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
38
87%
37
81%
35
71%
33
79%
30
80%
30
79%
27
78%
26
73%
25
71%
25
75%
24
87%
19
72%
15
93%
15
67%
10
56%
9
100%
8
75%
38
87%
37
81%
35
71%
Show all 17 rows
33
79%
30
80%
30
79%
27
78%
26
73%
25
71%
25
75%
24
87%
19
72%
15
93%
15
67%
10
56%
9
100%
8
75%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–24.[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
P2024/0156/FUL
Full Planning Application
Refused
2024-10-28
P2024/1861/FUL
Full Planning Application
Approved
2024-09-12
P2024/0156/FUL
Full Planning Application
Refused
2024-10-28
P2024/1861/FUL
Full Planning Application
Approved
2024-09-12
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 522 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Planning Potential
2. WEA Planning - Mr Avery
3. Miria Harris Limited
4. Cuozzo Fleming Architects Ltd.
At a glance
OfficerRoss Harvey
BoroughIslington
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications522 (2020–24)
Approval rate77%
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, 2020–24. · 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 268 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.