Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersTracy Batenburg Chapman
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Tracy Batenburg-Chapman.

Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 83% across 224 decided planning applications, spanning 22 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer224 decisions83% 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 →
224
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%85%202076%202183%202288%202393%202482%2025100%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate83% · 54th 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 reports173 officer reports parsed
7%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
15%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
10%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
68%
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
2.23× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.3× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
0.84× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
0.4× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
0.38× borough avg

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

Assigned Tracy Batenburg-Chapman 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

The rear outrigger (No. 49), plan, internal fabric, rear facade and roofs date from the 1950s

20/AP/0716

No information has been provided on the current condition of the windows and the extent to which original fabric survives, in order to assess the acceptability of this part of the proposal

20/AP/2488

The internal alterations to the main building at First Floor level have been omitted, following officer concerns about the loss of historic fabric and plan form

20/AP/2353

Measured from 173 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 173 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

HC1Paragraph Heritage
18 times cited
13Other locations of tall buildings
17 times cited
P19Listed buildings and structures
12 times cited
P20Conservation areas
10 times cited
P14Design quality
9 times cited
P13Design of places
8 times cited
P21Conservation of the historic environment and
8 times cited
P56Protection of amenity
7 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
26/AP/0895
S19 Vary/Remove Conds LBC
Approved
2026-05-07
26/AP/0919
Listed Building Consent
Not required
2026-05-05
26/AP/0895
S19 Vary/Remove Conds LBC
Approved
2026-05-07
26/AP/0919
Listed Building Consent
Not required
2026-05-05
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 224 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. TPM Studio
2. Robert Birbeck Architect
3. Outpost
4. alma-nac Ltd
At a glance
OfficerTracy Batenburg-Chapman
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications224 (2020–26)
Approval rate83%
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, 2020–26. · 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 173 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.