Development Intent
AtlasSuttonOfficersIvona Bryant
Planning Atlas›Sutton›Ivona Bryant
Case officer · Sutton Planning

Ivona Bryant.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Sutton with an approval rate of 71% across 668 decided planning applications, spanning 24 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer668 decisions71% 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 →
668
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%78%202068%202121%202242%202363%202588%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate71% · 10th 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 reports620 officer reports parsed
3%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
14%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
1%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
72%
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.

Materials & detailing
1.58× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.48× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.15× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.06× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.96× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Bryant's caseload skews toward larger, more complex householder schemes (basements, swimming pools, part one/part two storey extensions) in Areas of Special Local Character, and she has a comparatively high refusal share for this volume tier (44 of 620 recorded). Her refusals on ASLC/conservation-adjacent sites turn on cumulative depth relative to SPD4's explicit numeric limits — she states the 'cumulative depth of the proposal and the historic rear extension' in metres and directly compares it to the SPD4 maximum, treating any material excess as effectively determinative regardless of design quality elsewhere in the scheme. On basement/subterranean proposals she requires a Basement Impact Assessment addressing flood risk before granting, and will refuse where the Council's Sustainability Officer maintains an objection for lack of one.

Observable habits

· on ASLC/heritage-adjacent refusals, states the cumulative depth of historic-plus-proposed extensions in exact metres and compares it directly against SPD4's stated numeric maximum, treating material excess as close to determinative

· for basement and subterranean proposals, requires a Basement Impact Assessment specifically addressing flood risk before concluding acceptability, rather than accepting a general drainage statement

· on trees, defers explicitly to the Council's Principal Tree Officer's own judgement of root-loss tolerance ('within tolerable limits') rather than independently assessing arboricultural risk

What their reports consistently look for

· the exact cumulative depth (historic extension plus proposed) in metres, compared directly against SPD4's stated maximum for the relevant dwelling type

· a Basement Impact Assessment addressing flood risk to and from the development, required before a subterranean/basement scheme can be judged acceptable

· whether the Council's own Sustainability Officer maintains an unresolved objection due to missing basement/flood risk evidence

Assigned Ivona Bryant 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 cumulative depth of the proposal and the historic rear extension would be 8.8 metres. This depth would significantly exceed the criteria set out for terraced properties within SPD 4, which advises a maximum depth of 3.5 metres”

DM2020/00187

“Due to lack supporting Basement Impact Assessment (BIA) and any documentary evidence to show that the proposed design and layout complies with Environment Agency standing advice”

DM2020/00119

Measured from 620 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 620 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

29Protecting Amenity
184 times cited
28Character and Design
174 times cited
D12
12 times cited
30Heritage
10 times cited
37Parking
8 times cited
24Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land
7 times cited
D6
5 times cited
9Housing Sizes and Standards
4 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
97
70%
54
63%
49
61%
45
71%
44
76%
36
76%
36
78%
35
72%
34
78%
30
57%
27
87%
23
77%
21
80%
21
76%
17
67%
16
80%
15
82%
13
60%
13
57%
13
58%
12
67%
10
50%
6
60%
1
–
97
70%
54
63%
49
61%
Show all 24 rows
45
71%
44
76%
36
76%
36
78%
35
72%
34
78%
30
57%
27
87%
23
77%
21
80%
21
76%
17
67%
16
80%
15
82%
13
60%
13
57%
13
58%
12
67%
10
50%
6
60%
1
–

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
DM2026/00460
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-08
DM2026/00326
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-04
DM2026/00460
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-08
DM2026/00326
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-04
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 668 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Planning Additions
2. Happy Building Ltd
3. THALAM
4. Beaver Tech
At a glance
OfficerIvona Bryant
BoroughSutton
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications668 (2020–26)
Approval rate71%
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 620 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.