Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersFreya Cunningham
Planning Atlas›Southwark›Freya Cunningham
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Freya Cunningham.

Recently active — last recorded decision May 2025

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 88% across 67 decided planning applications, spanning 20 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer67 decisions88% 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 →
67
Applications
2020–25
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%88%202089%2021
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate88% · 46th 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 reports135 officer reports parsed
2%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
3%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
4%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
69%
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.

Transport & parking
2.61× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.91× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.62× borough avg
Trees & landscape
0.97× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
0.8× borough avg

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

Assigned Freya Cunningham 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

“Unit 5, shortfall of 0.8sqm overall; Unit 1 Bedroom 1, shortfall of 04.sqm; and Unit 2 bedroom, shortfall of 0.3sqm. These very minor shortfalls are considered acceptable”

20/AP/1194

“The proposed glasshouse structure, given its prominent scale and location on the eastern boundary of the garden, would be particularly visible from the church forecourt and would appear out of character with the wider area to users of the church”

20/AP/1190

Measured from 135 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 135 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

13Other locations of tall buildings
20 times cited
12- Sports facilities
1 times cited
D4Good
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
8
86%
8
75%
5
75%
4
75%
4
100%
3
67%
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
3
67%
3
100%
3
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
8
86%
8
75%
5
75%
Show all 20 rows
4
75%
4
100%
3
67%
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
3
67%
3
100%
3
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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
20/AP/3837
Householder Application
Approved
2021-07-21
21/AP/1910
S.73 Vary/Remove Conds/Minor Alterations
Approved
2021-07-21
20/AP/3837
Householder Application
Approved
2021-07-21
21/AP/1910
S.73 Vary/Remove Conds/Minor Alterations
Approved
2021-07-21
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 67 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. David Cook Architects
2. Firstplan
3. The Planning Group Ltd
4. Poynts Works
At a glance
OfficerFreya Cunningham
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications67 (2020–25)
Approval rate88%
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, 2020–25. · 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 135 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.