Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersTroy Davies
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Troy Davies.

Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 89% across 39 decided planning applications, spanning 14 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer39 decisions89% 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 →
39
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%80%2020100%2021100%2022100%202380%2025100%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate89% · 44th 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 reports25 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
19%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
8%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
75%
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.

Energy & sustainability
2.24× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.98× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.84× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.44× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.32× borough avg

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

Assigned Troy Davies 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 refuse and cycle stores are solely accessible from doorways to Bianca Road, and do not connect to the single stair core. A new access door has been inserted to the rear providing access to the basement through an additional stair well

20/AP/3822

Oversized balconies and terrace spaces on units do not offset the loss in individual private amenity space on other units

20/AP/3822

Measured from 25 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 25 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

P13Design of places
13 times cited
P14Design quality
13 times cited
P18Efficient use of land
13 times cited
P56Protection of amenity
13 times cited
P60Biodiversity
10 times cited
P61Trees
10 times cited
P15Residential
9 times cited
P65Improving air
5 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
23/AP/2365
Major application
Approved
2026-05-15
26/AP/1232
Minor application
2026-04-29
23/AP/2365
Major application
Approved
2026-05-15
26/AP/1232
Minor application
2026-04-29
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 39 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. hgh Consulting
2. JenRoss Consulting
3. Rolfe Judd Planning
4. Turley
At a glance
OfficerTroy Davies
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications39 (2020–26)
Approval rate89%
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 25 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.