Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersJessica Potter
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Jessica Potter.

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

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 92% across 58 decided planning applications, spanning 18 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer58 decisions92% 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 →
58
Applications
2020–23
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%93%2020100%202133%2022
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate92% · 28th 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 reports38 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
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
2.69× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.46× borough avg
Transport & parking
0.8× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.68× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
0.64× borough avg

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

Assigned Jessica Potter 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 proposal involves the removal of a 1990s Gyproc plasterboard partition and the insertion of a new softwood door. The changes will reveal the existing historical fabric at the top of the stairs. The proposal seeks to restore original timber treads and risers

20/AP/0419

The Councils aerial photographs show the extension in situ in 2002, the property has been registered for Council Tax purposes since 2010 it appears that the rear addition has been used as a separate self-contained unit for some time

20/AP/0796

Measured from 38 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 38 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

HC1Paragraph Heritage
6 times cited
13Other locations of tall buildings
5 times cited
12- Sports facilities
5 times cited
15
1 times cited
P13Design of places
1 times cited
P14Design quality
1 times cited
P19Listed buildings and structures
1 times cited
P21Conservation of the historic environment and
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[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/2634
Listed Building Consent
Withdrawn
2022-10-17
22/AP/0937
Minor application
Refused
2022-08-17
20/AP/2634
Listed Building Consent
Withdrawn
2022-10-17
22/AP/0937
Minor application
Refused
2022-08-17
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 58 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Knox Bhavan Architects LLP
2. JHArchitecture
3. Jones Lang LaSalle Limited
4. NLSA+D
At a glance
OfficerJessica Potter
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications58 (2020–23)
Approval rate92%
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, 2020–23. · 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 38 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.