Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersEleanor Heagney
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Eleanor Heagney.

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

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 90% across 188 decided planning applications, spanning 20 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer188 decisions90% 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 →
188
Applications
2021–24
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%89%202196%202284%202387%2024
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate90% · 37th 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
9%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
10%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
4%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
61%
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.

Character & heritage
2.68× borough avg
Materials & detailing
2.14× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
1.02× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
0.72× borough avg
Bulk & massing
0.36× borough avg

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

Assigned Eleanor Heagney 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

Amendments were sought by the planning officer to reduce the eaves height of the proposed development from 2.8m to 2.4m in order to avoid any harmful impacts on neighbouring sense of openness

21/AP/3050

The impact of the works have been minimised and are distinctly modest, but nonetheless remain harmful. That harm would be offset by the building's refurbishment, improved functionality and the securing of the optimum, long-term viable use of the heritage asset

21/AP/3117

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
33 times cited
P13Design of places
32 times cited
P19Listed buildings and structures
31 times cited
P21Conservation of the historic environment and
29 times cited
P20Conservation areas
28 times cited
HC1Paragraph Heritage
20 times cited
P56Protection of amenity
20 times cited
P15Residential
13 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

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
24/AP/2746
S19 Vary/Remove Conds LBC
Approved
2024-11-19
24/AP/2843
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2024-11-11
24/AP/2746
S19 Vary/Remove Conds LBC
Approved
2024-11-19
24/AP/2843
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2024-11-11
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 188 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Rolfe Judd Planning
2. Simon Whitehead Architects
3. CEDC
4. drsp architects
At a glance
OfficerEleanor Heagney
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications188 (2021–24)
Approval rate90%
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, 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 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.