Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersBecky Lambert
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Becky Lambert.

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

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 89% across 18 decided planning applications, spanning 13 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer18 decisions89% approvalSave
Southwark · 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 →
18
Applications
2024
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 rate89% · 42nd of 79
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 reports21 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
59%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Southwark's average officer

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

Precedent & consistency
4.29× borough avg
Bulk & massing
2.45× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.73× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.55× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.17× borough avg

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

Assigned Becky Lambert 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

there have been multiple applications for 0.4m roof ridge increases on Ryedale (24/AP/0228 & 17/AP/0716), that were refused on the basis that the large increase would disrupt the existing roofline patterns. As a result, the applicant agreed to lower this to a 0.3m roof ridge increase

24/AP/1173

this height and length will align with the approved, but not yet constructed rear extension at 210 Choumert Road (planning application ref: 23/AP/1888)

24/AP/1019

Measured from 21 published Southwark 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 21 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

P14Design quality
14 times cited
P15Residential
12 times cited
P13Design of places
9 times cited
P56Protection of amenity
8 times cited
D12
7 times cited
P18Efficient use of land
4 times cited
P20Conservation areas
3 times cited
P68Reducing flood risk
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024.[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
24/AP/1825
Householder Application
Approved
2024-09-04
24/AP/1823
Minor application
Refused
2024-08-27
24/AP/1825
Householder Application
Approved
2024-09-04
24/AP/1823
Minor application
Refused
2024-08-27
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 18 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. R2 Studio Architects Ltd
2. Studio DJL
3. Extensionplans.net
4. MPA
At a glance
OfficerBecky Lambert
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications18 (2024)
Approval rate89%
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 Southwark planning register and published decision notices, 2024. · 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 Southwark 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 21 published Southwark 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.