Development Intent
AtlasSouthwarkOfficersWinnie Wing Lam Tse
Case officer · Southwark Planning

Winnie Wing Lam Tse.

Last recorded decision Jul 2024 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 77% across 147 decided planning applications, spanning 23 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer147 decisions77% 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 →
147
Applications
2021–24
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%93%202173%202263%202387%2024
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate77% · 68th 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 reports131 officer reports parsed
5%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
7%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
35%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
65%
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.

Transport & parking
1.6× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.55× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
1.33× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.25× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.16× borough avg

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

Assigned Winnie Wing Lam Tse 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

weight has been given to the consented dormer extensions on the immediate neighbouring properties in the terrace including no. 3 and no. 13 (References: 17/AP/2185 and 17/AP/0075), where the dimensions of the former are mirrored by the proposed dormer

21/AP/2440

Due to the Council response to COVID pandemic, site visits are currently suspended, however the assessment has been duly undertaken using online resources, including aerial views, and submissions received from the applicant

21/AP/2440

Despite this not meeting the minimum requirement of 2.3 m set out in Residential Design Standards SPD (2015), the proposed headroom is the result of the dormers being set back from eaves for amenity and design reasons

21/AP/2440

Measured from 131 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 131 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

P14Design quality
57 times cited
P13Design of places
55 times cited
P56Protection of amenity
52 times cited
P15Residential
47 times cited
P18Efficient use of land
29 times cited
13Other locations of tall buildings
26 times cited
P20Conservation areas
25 times cited
P21Conservation of the historic environment and
24 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–24.[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
24/AP/1263
Householder Application
Approved
2024-08-28
24/AP/1595
S.73 Vary/Remove Conds/Minor Alterations
Approved
2024-08-14
24/AP/1263
Householder Application
Approved
2024-08-28
24/AP/1595
S.73 Vary/Remove Conds/Minor Alterations
Approved
2024-08-14
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 147 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Resi
2. Mono Consultants
3. KYRKE-SMITH ARCHITECTS
4. MSB Design
At a glance
OfficerWinnie Wing Lam Tse
BoroughSouthwark
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications147 (2021–24)
Approval rate77%
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, 2021–24. · 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 131 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.