Planning Atlas
AtlasDevelopersMccarthy Stone Dev Ltd
Planning AtlasDevelopersMcCarthy & Stone (Dev) Ltd
Developer · London

McCarthy & Stone (Dev) Ltd.

A developer bringing schemes forward across London. Has 21 applications in 6 boroughs, at a 75% approval rate, 1997–09.[1] Where they build, and how, is below.

Developer6 boroughs75% 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 →
21
Applications
London 1997–09
Avg S106 / unit
awaits s106 ingestion
Why a developer? Listed as a developer because every application we hold for them names them as the applicant.Something not right? Claim · Correct · Merge
Is this your developer?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 slippingtheir London-wide rate by year
0%50%100%’97’01’02’03’04’05’06’07’08’09
What they build — by scheme type
29decisions

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
67%
Show all 6 rows
1
100%

Where this developer builds, 1997–09.[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
Redbridge
Discharge of Condition(s)
Approved
2009-10-16
Redbridge
No determination
2008-11-05
Redbridge
Discharge of Condition(s)
Approved
2008-09-23
Redbridge
Discharge of Condition(s)
Approved
2008-08-20
Redbridge
Discharge of Condition(s)
Approved
2008-08-19
Redbridge
Discharge of Condition(s)
Approved
2008-08-19
Redbridge
Discharge of Condition(s)
Approved
2008-08-06
Redbridge
Discharge of Condition(s)
Approved
2008-08-05
Redbridge
Details Following Outline (Reserved Matters)
Approved
2008-02-07
Redbridge
Major Application
Refused
2007-10-10
Redbridge
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2007-03-01
Redbridge
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2006-09-18
Enfield
Full
Withdrawn
2005-06-21
Lewisham
Reserved Matters
Approved
2005-03-10
Lewisham
Reserved Matters
Approved
2004-04-20
Lewisham
Reserved Matters
Approved
2003-10-21
Lewisham
Reserved Matters
Approved
2003-07-02
Lewisham
Reserved Matters
Approved
2003-05-12
Lewisham
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2002-12-20
Sutton
Certificate of Proposed Use
Approved
2002-12-16
Sutton
Advert Application
Refused
2002-08-01
Lewisham
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2002-07-29
Lewisham
Conservation Area Consent
Approved
2001-07-31
Lewisham
Advertisement
Approved
2001-07-23
Redbridge
Advertisement Consent
Approved
2001-06-22
Lewisham
Conservation Area Consent
Withdrawn
2000-07-31
Sutton
Full Application
Other
1998-01-08
Sutton
Full Application
Approved
1997-12-16
Bexley
Advertisement Consent Application
Refused
1997-01-20
Redbridge
Discharge of Condition(s)
Approved
2009-10-16
Redbridge
No determination
2008-11-05
Show all 33 rows
Redbridge
Discharge of Condition(s)
Approved
2008-09-23
Redbridge
Discharge of Condition(s)
Approved
2008-08-20
Redbridge
Discharge of Condition(s)
Approved
2008-08-19
Redbridge
Discharge of Condition(s)
Approved
2008-08-19
Redbridge
Discharge of Condition(s)
Approved
2008-08-06
Redbridge
Discharge of Condition(s)
Approved
2008-08-05
Redbridge
Details Following Outline (Reserved Matters)
Approved
2008-02-07
Redbridge
Major Application
Refused
2007-10-10
Redbridge
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2007-03-01
Redbridge
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2006-09-18
Enfield
Full
Withdrawn
2005-06-21
Lewisham
Reserved Matters
Approved
2005-03-10
Lewisham
Reserved Matters
Approved
2004-04-20
Lewisham
Reserved Matters
Approved
2003-10-21
Lewisham
Reserved Matters
Approved
2003-07-02
Lewisham
Reserved Matters
Approved
2003-05-12
Lewisham
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2002-12-20
Sutton
Certificate of Proposed Use
Approved
2002-12-16
Sutton
Advert Application
Refused
2002-08-01
Lewisham
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2002-07-29
Lewisham
Conservation Area Consent
Approved
2001-07-31
Lewisham
Advertisement
Approved
2001-07-23
Redbridge
Advertisement Consent
Approved
2001-06-22
Lewisham
Conservation Area Consent
Withdrawn
2000-07-31
Sutton
Full Application
Other
1998-01-08
Sutton
Full Application
Approved
1997-12-16
Bexley
Advertisement Consent Application
Refused
1997-01-20
Consultants they instruct— subscriber data
At a glance
DeveloperMcCarthy & Stone (Dev) Ltd
Coverage6 London boroughs
Applications21 (1997–09)
Units sought
Approval rate75%
London rank#5141 of 16,342
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.