Planning Atlas
AtlasConsultantsGodsmark Architecture
Planning AtlasConsultantsGodsmark Architecture
Planning consultancy · London

Godsmark Architecture.

A planning consultancy acting for applicants across London. Wins consent on 77% of applicationsclose to the London average of 79% — across 351 applications in 24 boroughs, 1999–26.[1] Where they win, and how, is below.

Planning consultancy28 years active24 boroughs77% approval417th in LondonCompanies House 04650352
Where they win — by borough · tap to focus
FewerMore applications
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 →
351
Applications
London 1999–26
Appeal success
fewer than 5 appeals on record for this firm
8 wks
Decision time
median, validation to decision · 282 decided applications
Why a consultant? Listed as a consultant because every application we hold for them names them as the agent.Something not right? Claim · Correct · Merge
Is this your firm?This profile is built from public planning records. Claim it to add your intro, logo and project images.
Claim this profile →
Approval rate over time — improving or slippingDashed line = London average
0%50%100%’99’00’01’02’03’04’05’06’07’08’09’10’11’12’13’14’15’16’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
What they submit — by scheme type
351decisions

Click a slice to reshade the London map by that type.

Policies they argue — and how often it wins[3]

The policies this consultancy leans on most across its applications — how often each appears, and how often a scheme citing it wins consent.

Policies argued are coded from each officer report and decision notice — this table publishes when decision-notice ingestion lands. No policy playbook is shown until it's real.
Case officers — win rate when this firm submits— subscriber data

How often each named case officer grants consent on this firm's applications. Pairing patterns from the public register — not endorsements.

Applications by borough

Where this firm's applications concentrate, 1999–26.[1] Click the map above to focus a borough, or a row to open it.

Outcomes secured — S106 by borough
S106 agreements aren't yet traced to this firm's consents — the borough-by-borough table of contributions secured publishes when the section 106 agreements are ingested. No figure is shown until it's real.
Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
PA25/3964
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2026-04-16
PA26/0171
Full Application
Approved
2026-04-08
PA25/3964
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2026-04-16
PA26/0171
Full Application
Approved
2026-04-08
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 351 applications →
Developers they act for— subscriber data
At a glance
FirmGodsmark Architecture
TypePlanning consultancy
Coverage24 London boroughs
Years active28 (1999–26)
Applications351
Approval rate77%
London avg79%
London rank417th of 46,134
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
Refusal Hotspots — where it's hard →
The wards and boroughs where applications die — and the ones that wave almost everything through.
How every consultancy ranks →
Approval rate and scheme mix across London consultancies — the full track record.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications, approval rate and borough breakdown — the London planning applications on which this firm is the named agent, from borough planning registers and published decision notices, 1999–26. The consultant is the COMPANY (a firm filing under several individuals is merged to the firm). "Named agent" means whoever submitted the application to the council — where a separate agent files on behalf of the actual architect or designer, that design credit isn't captured here; this reflects who submitted, not necessarily who designed. Approval rate = approved ÷ (approved + refused), substantive decisions only. · methodology
  2. [2]Case-officer and developer pairings — the named case officer and applicant company on each of this firm’s register records, joined to their own live profiles. Pairing patterns, not endorsements. · methodology
  3. [3]Policies argued are coded from each officer report and decision notice against the adopted Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF — publishes with decision-notice ingestion. · methodology
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.