Development Intent
AtlasSuttonOfficersDenuka Gunaratne
Case officer · Sutton Planning

Denuka Gunaratne.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Sutton with an approval rate of 80% across 1,465 decided planning applications, spanning 26 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer1,465 decisions80% approvalSave
Sutton · 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 →
1,465
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%74%202070%202180%202279%202387%202489%202592%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate80% · 4th of 18
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 reports1150 officer reports parsed
7%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
2%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
3%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
48%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Sutton's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Sutton reports. Attention, not stance.

Flooding & drainage
2.48× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.52× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.21× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.21× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.02× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Gunaratne's reports are dominated by short, high-volume approvals of modest garage conversions, side/rear extensions and dormer loft conversions, and her reasoning leans heavily on a direct comparison to a SPECIFIC neighbouring precedent, cited by its own house number and (where relevant) application reference, rather than a general area-character statement — a scheme is acceptable because 'there is a current existing similar depth rear extension at neighbouring No. 57' or because a specific numbered neighbour has already had an identical garage conversion approved. Her refusals are comparatively rare in this sample and concentrate on flood-risk-constrained sites (Environment Agency objection on functional floodplain grounds) and out-of-character retail/infill schemes that depart from the surrounding building form, rather than routine amenity harm on ordinary extensions.

Observable habits

· anchors an acceptability finding to a SPECIFIC numbered neighbouring property with an equivalent existing feature (extension, garage conversion, dormer), named by house number, rather than a general character-of-the-area statement

· for garage conversions, checks whether permitted development rights for that specific use have already been formally removed by an earlier planning condition before assessing the current application on its own terms

· on flood-constrained sites, treats a maintained standing Environment Agency objection as effectively determinative, quoting the EA's own flood-zone/vulnerability-category wording directly into the reasoning rather than paraphrasing it

What their reports consistently look for

· a specific comparable feature at a named neighbouring house number, used to justify subordination or separation-distance judgements

· whether permitted development rights for the relevant class of works have already been removed by a condition attached to an earlier planning permission at the same site

· the Environment Agency's and Council Sustainability Officer's own standing position on flood risk for sites within a designated Critical Drainage Area or high-risk flood zone

Assigned Denuka Gunaratne 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

There is an existing similar depth rear extension at neighbouring No. 57, and in this context the proposal would not be out of character

DM2020/00087

the whole of the site is at 'high risk' of fluvial flooding with a greater than a 3.3% (or 1 in 30 year) annual probability of flooding as shown below (EA Flood Zone 3b: Functional Floodplain)

DM2020/00285

Measured from 1150 published Sutton 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 1150 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D12
179 times cited
28Character and Design
139 times cited
29Protecting Amenity
85 times cited
37Parking
37 times cited
D6
27 times cited
36Transport Impact
26 times cited
GG2
25 times cited
9Housing Sizes and Standards
15 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
DM2026/00041
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-02
DM2026/00634
Householder Application
2026-05-21
DM2026/00041
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-02
DM2026/00634
Householder Application
2026-05-21
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 1,465 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. CANOPY PLANNING SERVICES LTD
2. KJC Architects
3. Quantum Architectural Designs
4. THALAM
At a glance
OfficerDenuka Gunaratne
BoroughSutton
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications1,465 (2020–26)
Approval rate80%
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 Sutton 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 Sutton 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 1150 published Sutton 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.