Louise Dinsdale.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 93% across 417 decided planning applications, spanning 23 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Southwark reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Dinsdale's corpus skews heavily toward Certificate of Lawfulness (Class A permitted-development) checklist reports, working through the GPDO Schedule 2 Part 1 criteria question-by-question (curtilage coverage, eaves proximity to boundary, article 2(3) land status) rather than free-form design narrative. Where a full planning application does appear, her amenity write-up stays close to the same eaves-height-and-boundary-distance format used borough-wide.
· works through GPDO Schedule 2 Part 1 Class A criteria as discrete Yes/No questions (curtilage coverage, boundary proximity, article 2(3) land) rather than narrative design assessment
· records where an applicant failed to resolve a specific factual query (e.g. confirming an HMO's true unit configuration) as the reason a certificate could not be granted as submitted
· keeps full-application amenity assessments to the borough's standard eaves-height/boundary-distance format
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a Yes/No answer to each individual GPDO Schedule 2 Part 1 Class A criterion rather than a blended judgement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the property's use-class history (e.g. prior change of use under Class M/N/P/PA/Q) affects permitted development eligibility
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: precise ground-coverage percentage within the curtilage against the 50% GPDO threshold
“Extension < 2m from neighbour boundary with 3m eaves height”
20/AP/0135
“The applicant has been unable to provide revised proposed floor plans that reflect the licensed HMO will not be divided into seven self-contained flats”
20/AP/0185
Measured from 355 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.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 355 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Southwark planning register and published decision notices, 2020–26. · methodology
- [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]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]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 355 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.