Adeoye Lawal.
Recently active — last recorded decision Nov 2024
A case officer at Bexley with an approval rate of 77% across 398 decided planning applications, spanning 17 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Bexley reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Lawal has the highest refusal rate among the coded high-volume officers (18/127, ~14%), and is distinctive for running the BRE 45-degree daylight test explicitly and reporting its result as a discrete finding ('The test shows that the extension would not intersect a 45 degree line drawn from the centre of the closest first floor rear facing habitable window') rather than a qualitative daylight impression. He structures refusal reports with an explicit closing 'Summary' sub-heading that states the specific harm and names the policies breached (SP5/DP11), giving the refusal reasoning a clean self-contained citation the applicant could directly appeal against. On parking/highways he is attentive to the retained NUMBER of off-street spaces after a garage or driveway change, cross-checking the Highway Authority's own view before endorsing it rather than deferring automatically.
· runs the BRE 45-degree daylight test explicitly for two-storey extensions near a boundary and reports the geometric result as a discrete finding, not a qualitative daylight impression
· structures refusal reports with an explicit closing 'Summary' sub-heading naming the specific harm and the exact policies breached (SP5/DP11), giving a clean citable refusal reason
· cross-checks the Highway Authority's stated view on retained off-street parking space count before formally endorsing it, rather than adopting it automatically
· whether a BRE 45-degree line drawn from the centre of the nearest affected habitable window is intersected by the proposed extension
· the exact policies (SP5/DP11) breached by an unacceptable scheme, stated in a discrete closing summary paragraph
· the precise number of off-street parking spaces retained after a garage conversion or driveway alteration, checked against the Highway Authority's own comments before endorsement
“The test shows that the extension would not intersect a 45 degree line drawn from the centre of the closest first floor rear facing habitable window. As such, the test shows that no significant overshadowing or overbearing impact to the rear facing windows is anticipated”
23/00148/FUL
“The proposal would result in harm to the character of the application property and the amenity of occupiers of the adjoining property. The proposal therefore fails to accord with relevant Development Plan policies, in particular Policy's SP5 and DP11 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023)”
23/00096/FUL
Measured from 127 published Bexley officer reports written by this officer, with recited policy boilerplate stripped before any counting. These describe how this officer works and writes — they are not outcome predictions. Every quote is from a named public report.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 127 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–24.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Bexley planning register and published decision notices, 2020–24. · methodology
- [2]Appeal overturn and decision-time benchmarks — Planning Inspectorate (PINS) appeal decisions and application date pairs; not yet computed per officer, shown as a dash until they are. · PINS appeals casework
- [3]Condition load — Bexley's decision-notice parsing is limited coverage, so no borough or officer figure is shown.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 127 published Bexley officer reports written by this officer, recited policy boilerplate stripped before counting; disposition text coded from their own reasoning with every quote machine-verified verbatim. Descriptive of how they work — not outcome predictions.