Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersJames Baddeley
Case officer · Southwark Planning

James Baddeley.

Last recorded decision Jun 2023 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 100% across 33 decided planning applications, spanning 12 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer33 decisions100% 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 →
33
Applications
2023
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 rate100% · 2nd 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 reports40 officer reports parsed
8%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
3%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
54%
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.

Materials & detailing
1.94× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.88× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.2× borough avg
Character & heritage
0.92× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
0.62× borough avg

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

Assigned James Baddeley 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

This has been reviewed in consultation with the council's Environmental Protection Team, who have confirmed that the plant noise emissions would be acceptable

23/AP/0276

since this property has a rear extension standing at 3.3m on the shared boundary

23/AP/0454

Measured from 40 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 40 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

P14Design quality
32 times cited
P56Protection of amenity
31 times cited
P15Residential
28 times cited
HC1Paragraph Heritage
25 times cited
P13Design of places
18 times cited
P20Conservation areas
7 times cited
P21Conservation of the historic environment and
6 times cited
D12
5 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023.[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
23/AP/1582
Householder Application
Approved
2023-08-23
23/AP/1561
Minor application
Approved
2023-08-08
23/AP/1582
Householder Application
Approved
2023-08-23
23/AP/1561
Minor application
Approved
2023-08-08
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 33 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. jmarchitects ltd
2. M.A. Newsome & Co Ltd
3. Pegasus Group
4. OCR Surveying
At a glance
OfficerJames Baddeley
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications33 (2023)
Approval rate100%
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. · 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 40 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.