Polly Davidson.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Sutton with an approval rate of 73% across 891 decided planning applications, spanning 19 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Sutton reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Davidson's reports frequently reference a scheme's own resubmission history in detail — quoting the previous refusal reason verbatim before explaining precisely which dimension or material has changed to overcome it — and she is comparatively willing to refuse garden-land infill schemes on Policy 13 grounds even where the principle of residential use is otherwise accepted, treating loss of garden character/ecological value as an independent gate rather than folding it into an overall design balance. Her approvals of straightforward extensions and conversions are typically justified by reference to an identical or near-identical scheme already approved at an adjoining or nearby address, cited by its own application reference.
· on resubmissions, quotes the PREVIOUS refusal reason verbatim before identifying the specific amended dimension or material that is said to overcome it, rather than assessing the new scheme as if it had no history
· treats garden-land/back-garden character and ecological value (Policy 13) as an independent refusal gate on infill proposals, assessed separately from and prior to the land-use principle test
· justifies routine approvals by citing an identical or near-identical scheme already granted at a specific nearby address, by its own application reference
· the exact wording of a previous refusal reason, checked point-by-point against what has actually changed in the resubmitted scheme
· whether a back-garden infill site makes an important contribution to area character or has ecological value under Policy 13, assessed as a discrete gate
· a specific, named comparable scheme already granted at a nearby address, cited by its own application reference, to support a routine approval
“The proposal would fail to relate sympathetically to the dwelling, appearing overly dominant and significantly altering the appearance of the street scene and the surrounding area”
DM2020/00080
“Policy 13 of the Sutton Local Plan places a greater emphasis on controlling the development of garden land”
DM2020/00109
Measured from 697 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.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 697 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 19 rows
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.
- [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]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]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]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 697 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.