Planning Atlas
AtlasDevelopersAquarius Developments
Planning AtlasDevelopersAquarius Developments
Developer · London

Aquarius Developments.

A developer bringing schemes forward across London. Has 4 applications in 1 borough, seeking 12 residential units, at a 2 approved · 1 refused approval rate, 2004–06.[1] Where they build, and how, is below.

Developer12 units sought1 borough2 approved · 1 refused approval
Where they build — 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 →
4
Applications
London 2004–06
0
Refusals overturned
no refusal has been overturned at appeal
Why is Aquarius Developments listed as a developer?It is recorded as the applicant bringing forward 4 applications.Is this your organisation? Claim it — free →Add your logo, contact details and project photos, and correct your record — free.
Record component
Applications
Approval rate
Basis
Aquarius Developments
4
Organisation name or verified alias recorded as the applicant
Aquarius Developments
4
Organisation name or verified alias recorded as the applicant
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 slippingtheir London-wide rate by year
0%50%100%’04’05’06
What they build — by scheme type
4decisions

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

Their planning record — policies in play

The policies most in play across this developer's schemes — how often each appears, and how often a scheme citing it wins consent.

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

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

The officer↔developer pairing isn't joined in the data layer yet — this table publishes when it is. Each borough's officers are already ranked in Track Records.
Applications by borough
Borough
Applications
Approval rate
4
2 approved · 2 refused
4
2 approved · 2 refused

Where this developer builds, 2004–06.[1] Click the map above to explore spatially, or a row to open the borough.

Outcomes secured — S106 by borough
S106 outcomes per unit aren't traced per developer yet — the borough-by-borough table publishes when the section 106 agreements and committee reports are ingested against this developer's consents.
Recent applications
Address
Borough
Type
Outcome
Date
Barnet
Full Application
Approved
2006-03-21
Barnet
Full Application
Approved
2005-10-27
Barnet
Full Application
Refused
2004-03-10
Barnet
Full Application
Withdrawn
2004-02-13
Barnet
Full Application
Approved
2006-03-21
Barnet
Full Application
Approved
2005-10-27
Barnet
Full Application
Refused
2004-03-10
Show all 4 rows
Barnet
Full Application
Withdrawn
2004-02-13
Consultants they instruct

No named planning agents on this developer's applications.

At a glance
DeveloperAquarius Developments
Coverage1 London borough
Applications4 (2004–06)
Units sought12
Approval rate2 approved · 1 refused
London rank#2680 of 14,946
Related investigations
How every developer ranks →
Approval rate, units sought and borough coverage across London developers, consultants, officers and inspectors.
Refusal Hotspots — where it's hard →
The wards and boroughs where applications die — and the ones that wave almost everything through.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications, approval rate, borough breakdown and units — the planning applications across London on which this company is the named applicant, from borough planning registers. Individual householders are excluded. Units = residential units conservatively parsed from each proposal (sought, not delivered); not every scheme states a count. · methodology
  2. [2]Agents — the named planning agent on each of this developer’s applications, joined to the London consultant record. · methodology
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.