Development Intent
AtlasIslingtonOfficersSimon Roberts
Case officer · Islington Planning

Simon Roberts.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 80% across 24 decided planning applications, spanning 6 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer24 decisions80% 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 →
24
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%50%2022100%2023100%2024100%2025
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate80% · 39th 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 reports31 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
94%
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.

Flooding & drainage
6.63× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
4.23× borough avg
Transport & parking
2.78× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
2.46× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.36× borough avg

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

Assigned Simon Roberts 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

The proposed development is considered to result in unacceptable impacts on neighbouring residential amenity in terms of daylight and sunlight to neighbouring windows and rooms, and to the neighbouring shared residential amenity space.

P2024/2471/FUL · recommendation: That planning permission would have been REFUSED for the reasons listed below had the application not been appealed:

Insufficient detail has been provided of how the development will meet the GLA's `Be Seen' requirements.

P2024/2471/FUL · recommendation: That planning permission would have been REFUSED for the reasons listed below had the application not been appealed:

Measured from 31 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 across their decisions — how often each appears, and whether refusals citing it survive appeal.

In development — policy citations are coded from officer reports, and that parsing hasn't run for Islington yet. Nothing is shown until it is real.

Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
Show all 6 rows
2
100%

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
P2026/0992/FUL
Full Planning Application
2026-04-15
P2025/2797/FUL
Full Planning Application
2025-10-03
P2026/0992/FUL
Full Planning Application
2026-04-15
P2025/2797/FUL
Full Planning Application
2025-10-03
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 24 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. ROK Planning-Jamie Dempster
2. Rolfe Judd Planning
3. Shoshannah Stone - Centro Planning Consultancy
At a glance
OfficerSimon Roberts
BoroughIslington
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications24 (2020–26)
Approval rate80%
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, 2020–26. · 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 31 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.