Development Intent
AtlasLambethOfficersChristopher Poad
Planning Atlas›Lambeth›Christopher Poad
Case officer · Lambeth Planning

Christopher Poad.

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

A case officer at Lambeth with an approval rate of 59% across 165 decided planning applications, spanning 15 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer165 decisions59% approvalSave
Lambeth · 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 →
165
Applications
2021–24
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%70%202243%202369%2024
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate59% · 64th of 72
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 reports

Not filled in yet — this needs at least 20 of Christopher Poad's own officer reports parsed, and their reports haven't reached that threshold in the parsing run. It fills automatically as parsing progresses; nothing is estimated in its place.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies cited most on decision notices for applications Christopher Poad decided — 136 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

Q5Local distinctivenessLambeth plan
87 times cited
Q11Building alterations and extensionsLambeth plan
84 times cited
Q2AmenityLambeth plan
74 times cited
Q8Design quality: construction detailingLambeth plan
48 times cited
Q22Conservation areasLambeth plan
40 times cited
T3CyclingLambeth plan
31 times cited
T1Sustainable travelLambeth plan
30 times cited
Q13Cycle storageLambeth plan
27 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
37
74%
26
50%
22
60%
17
69%
12
50%
10
75%
10
33%
8
50%
7
50%
5
40%
3
100%
2
0%
2
0%
2
50%
1
100%
37
74%
26
50%
22
60%
Show all 15 rows
17
69%
12
50%
10
75%
10
33%
8
50%
7
50%
5
40%
3
100%
2
0%
2
0%
2
50%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–24.[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
22/00618/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2024-12-09
21/04994/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2024-11-26
22/00618/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2024-12-09
21/04994/FUL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2024-11-26
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 165 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Phillips Planning Services Limited
2. City Planning
3. Resi
4. 4D PLanning
At a glance
OfficerChristopher Poad
BoroughLambeth
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications165 (2021–24)
Approval rate59%
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 Lambeth planning register and published decision notices, 2021–24. · 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 Lambeth decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
  4. [4]Policy citations will be coded from officer reports against the adopted Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF — that parsing has not run for this borough yet.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.