LPA Profile
What we hold on a single planning authority: appeal behaviour, what they refuse on, which policies they cite, and how current their local plan is. For the national league table and 47-year statistical history, see Council Performance. New: which refusal reasons survive appeal here — measured from real Inspectorate decision letters.
Bexley London Borough Council
GSS E09000004 · Portal: idox (ok) · council register
Official statistics — is development moving through the system?
MHCLG quarterly planning returns (PS1/PS2), last 4 quarters 2025 Q3 to 2026 Q2, and the government's latest Housing Delivery Test. These are the authority's own statutory returns, not our scrape.
Peer ranks compare only London boroughs with more than 50 decisions in the window, the same floor as the national rank. A rank among peers is the fairer read: types of authority carry very different caseloads.
| Type | Decisions | Approved | In time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Major | 19 | 89.5% | 100.0% |
| Minor | 238 | 82.4% | 94.2% |
| Other | 1,001 | 91.2% | — |
| of which householder | 877 | 94.6% | 99.6% |
Delivery 85–94%: the authority must publish an action plan. No presumption or buffer consequence.
| Dataset | Publisher | Covers this authority | Loaded | Official source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning application decisions (PS2) | MHCLG | 1979 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (189 quarters) | 25 Oct 2026 · 68,583 rows nationally | Live tables |
| Planning application flow (PS1) | MHCLG | 1979 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (189 quarters) | 25 Oct 2026 · 42,861 rows nationally | Live tables |
| Housing Delivery Test 2025 | MHCLG | 2022/23 to 2024/25 | 18 Aug 2026 | Measurement |
What this authority refuses on
Classified from the reasons in decision notices we hold for this council. Categories can overlap — one reason often engages more than one issue.
| Objection type | Reasons |
|---|---|
| Missing information or evidence | 8 |
| Neighbour amenity | 2 |
| Highways and access | 2 |
| Flood risk and drainage | 1 |
| Design, scale or layout | 1 |
How this council decides
Measured against the published determination target on 1,550 decisions. Average window from valid date to target: 55 days (the statutory period is 56 days for most applications, 91 for majors).
(4+ days before target)
(final 3 days)
(after the target)
valid date to decision
This authority runs to the wire: most decisions land in the last few days before the statutory target. Chasing before then rarely brings a decision forward.
Which day applications are submitted, validated and decided
| Submitted (n=1,550) | Validated (n=1,550) | Decided (n=1,550) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mon | 24.5% | 23.8% | 16.8% | |||
| Tue | 19.2% | 19.6% | 20.1% | |||
| Wed | 17.9% | 18.6% | 22.3% | |||
| Thu | 22.6% | 21.4% | 22.8% | |||
| Fri | 15.8% | 16.4% | 17.9% | |||
An even working week is 20% a day. Amber marks a day carrying 26% or more. Submitted is the date the council received the application; validated is the date it was made valid and the clock started. All three columns use the same applications, so they can be read across.
By application type
| Type | Decisions | Before deadline | On deadline day | Late | Average days |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full | 559 | 8% | 65% | 28% | 75 |
| Outline | 221 | 15% | 75% | 10% | 54 |
| Householder planning permission | 177 | 21% | 67% | 11% | 60 |
| Conditions | 96 | 10% | 53% | 36% | 96 |
| Full planning permission | 95 | 16% | 45% | 39% | 119 |
| Lawful development: Proposed use | 69 | 46% | 51% | 3% | 53 |
| All Other | 68 | 21% | 49% | 31% | 76 |
| Trees | 53 | 13% | 55% | 32% | 63 |
What "after the target" means. Published data cannot distinguish an agreed extension of time from a target that was simply missed — both appear the same way. This measures when the decision was issued relative to the statutory target, and nothing more. Deadline data comes from the council's own published determination target, captured where its portal exposes it (Idox councils and the London Datahub).
Policies most often cited in refusals
Case officers in our data
| Officer | Applications | Decided | Approved | Refused | Withdrawn | Approval rate | Average days | Late | Mostly handles | Seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claire Collins | 10 | 10 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 78% | 41 | — | Detailed Planning Application (3) | Jul 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Temilayo Ajayi | 9 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 56% | 54 | — | Detailed Planning Application (5) | Jun 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Heather Redfern | 8 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 71% | 58 | — | Detailed Planning Application (3) | Mar 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Henry Stone | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 33 | — | Detailed Planning Application (1) | Aug 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Katie Huckstepp | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 67% | 47 | — | Details pursuant to Planning Condition (1) | May 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| David Willing | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0% | 84 | — | Detailed Planning Application (1) | May 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Senan Kelly | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 18 | — | Adjoining Local Authority Consultation (1) | Oct 2026 – Oct 2026 |
Counts come from the applications we have scraped, which is a fraction of each officer's caseload. Approval rate is approvals as a share of approvals plus refusals; withdrawn and other outcomes are excluded. Average days runs from the validated date to the decision. Late is the share decided after the published determination target, shown only where we hold a target for at least five of that officer's decisions. "Mostly handles" is the application type they appear on most often. Treat as a sample of who is active, not as a performance measure of an individual: a caseload of majors runs longer than one of householder applications. Click a name for the full officer profile.
Agents most active here
| Agent / firm | Applications | Decided | Approved | Refused | Withdrawn | Success rate | Average days | Mostly brings | Seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not Available | 11 | 11 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0% | 72 | Detailed Planning Application (6) | Mar 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Ms Natalie Gaunt | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 56 | Advertisement Consent Application (1) | Jun 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| KHD Architecture Ltd | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Conditions (1) | Aug 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| Mr David Gutwirth | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 22 | General Permitted Development-Extensions (1) | Sep 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Curio Architects | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Conditions (1) | Jul 2026 – Jul 2026 |
| BetterLivingSpace Ltd | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 56 | Outline (1) | Jul 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| LYONDALE | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 42 | Outline (1) | Jul 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| Connick Tree Care | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 56 | Trees (1) | Jun 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Design Quarter UK Ltd | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 56 | Full (1) | Jun 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| Graphite Design Ltd | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | — | Full (1) | Mar 2026 – Mar 2026 |
| Mr Frazer Day | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 41 | General Permitted Development-Extensions (1) | Aug 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Mr M Woodhams | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 28 | Minor Amendment Application (1) | Sep 2026 – Oct 2026 |
Success rate is approvals as a share of approvals plus refusals; withdrawn and other outcomes are excluded, so an agent who withdraws rather than takes a refusal will look stronger than the raw numbers suggest. Average days runs from the validated date to the decision. "Mostly brings" is the application type the firm appears on most often, which explains much of the difference: tree works and conditions discharge are approved far more often than new build. Counts are from the applications we have scraped, not the firm's full workload.
Development plan
Bexley Local Plan
Adoption date not published in the national register
Plan documents
National statistics for this authority →
Councils with data on file
On the numbers. The refusal rate, officers and agents here are computed from the applications PlanningCore has collected for this authority — for most councils that is a recent sample rather than the full register, and the date range above tells you which. The appeal overturn rate comes from Planning Inspectorate decisions and covers a much longer period. Use the national statistics page for complete, official volumes.
About this tool: LPA Profile
Deep-dive authority analysis — approval rates by type, refusal reason clustering, appeal overturn rates, average decision times, and strictness rankings.
Use to understand how your LPA behaves. Every council has different tendencies — some are design-focused, some are policy-strict, some are more pragmatic.
MHCLG planning statistics, appeal decision analysis
Use these tools to understand how your Local Planning Authority behaves — what they approve, what they refuse, how often appeals succeed, and what strategy gives you the best chance. This is behavioural intelligence, not just policy research.
Guidance to help you prepare — not formal planning advice. Check the current policy text and your council's local plan before relying on it.