Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersChloe Rimell
Planning Atlas›Southwark›Chloe Rimell
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Chloe Rimell.

Active — last recorded decision Feb 2026

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 91% across 153 decided planning applications, spanning 22 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer153 decisions91% 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 →
153
Applications
2023–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%89%202393%2024100%2025
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate91% · 33rd 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 reports170 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
11%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
60%
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
1.78× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.75× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.75× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.23× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.15× borough avg

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

Assigned Chloe Rimell 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

“Officers consider that the proposed extensions at first floor would be visually disruptive and fail to harmonise with the host architecture”

23/AP/0844

“The proposed unit is small in size, and fails to meet the required room sizes for several rooms within the unit, as well as, the overall size requirement for a one bedroom, two person unit”

23/AP/0926

Measured from 170 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 170 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

P14Design quality
108 times cited
P56Protection of amenity
105 times cited
P15Residential
93 times cited
P13Design of places
73 times cited
D12
53 times cited
P20Conservation areas
45 times cited
P21Conservation of the historic environment and
41 times cited
HC1Paragraph Heritage
39 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
21
95%
21
86%
16
93%
11
82%
9
88%
9
100%
8
100%
7
86%
7
100%
6
100%
6
83%
5
80%
5
100%
5
80%
4
67%
4
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
21
95%
21
86%
16
93%
Show all 22 rows
11
82%
9
88%
9
100%
8
100%
7
86%
7
100%
6
100%
6
83%
5
80%
5
100%
5
80%
4
67%
4
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[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
25/AP/0809
Minor application
Approved
2025-05-20
25/AP/0808
Minor application
Approved
2025-05-20
25/AP/0809
Minor application
Approved
2025-05-20
25/AP/0808
Minor application
Approved
2025-05-20
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 153 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Resi
2. Studio DJL
3. Studio McLeod
4. Rolfe Judd Planning Ltd
At a glance
OfficerChloe Rimell
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications153 (2023–26)
Approval rate91%
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, 2023–26. · 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 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 170 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.