Planning consultancy · London
M Assi.
A planning consultancy acting for applicants across London. Wins consent on 66% of applications — below the London average of 79% — across 139 applications in 12 boroughs, 2002–17.[1] Where they win, and how, is below.
Planning consultancy16 years active12 boroughs66% approval1362nd in London
Where they win — by borough · tap to focus
FewerMore applications
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →139
Applications
London 2002–17
0
Appeals
no appeal on record — every decision stood
8 wks
Decision time
median, validation to decision · 133 decided applications
Why is M Assi listed as a consultant?It is recorded as the planning agent on 139 applications.Is this your firm? Claim it — free →Add your logo, contact details and project photos, and correct your record — free.
Record component
Applications
Approval rate
Basis
M Assi
139
66%
Organisation name or verified alias recorded as the planning agent
M Assi
139
66%
Organisation name or verified alias recorded as the planning agent
Recorded on council registers as: “M Assi” (90) · “M ASSI” (28) · “M. Assi” (19) · “M. ASSI” (1) · “m assi” (1)
Possible matches that cannot be tied to this checked identity are excluded rather than guessed.
Something not right?
Worked on an application here but didn't submit it? Team credits — architects and project teams shown on schemes they worked on — are coming. Claim your profile and we'll tell you when it's live.
Approval rate over time — improving or slippingDashed line = London average
What they submit — by scheme type
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
Borough
Applications
Approval rate
Show all 12 rows
Where this firm's applications concentrate, 2002–17.[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
P/2012/3429
Full Application
Approved
2012-10-11
P/2012/0652
Full Application
Approved
2012-04-13
Show all 60 rows
P/2012/3429
Full Application
Approved
2012-10-11
P/2012/0652
Full Application
Approved
2012-04-13
Developers they act for— subscriber data
No repeat company developers identified on this firm's applications.
At a glance
FirmM Assi
TypePlanning consultancy
Coverage12 London boroughs
Years active16 (2002–17)
Applications139
Approval rate66%
London avg79%
London rank1362nd of 51,603
Who decides here
Related investigations
Sources & method
- [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, 2002–17. 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]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]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.