Ike Nwankwo-Dimano.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Bexley with an approval rate of 92% across 177 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×.
Nwankwo-Dimano's caseload is dominated by non-material amendments (FULMIN) to previously approved multi-unit schemes, and he is distinctive for a consistent, disciplined non-material-amendment test structure: he states precisely WHAT is changing (internal layout, external material, footprint), then explicitly checks whether that specific change would alter a PRIOR amenity/design assessment already made for the parent permission, treating the amendment as a delta against a known baseline rather than reassessing the whole scheme. He is notably willing to state when floor-plan documentation is deficient ('the applicant has failed to display the proposed number of bedspaces' style gaps, applied consistently across HMO/flat schemes) as a discrete assessment obstacle.
· structures every FULMIN assessment as a precise 'what is changing' statement followed by an explicit delta-check against the PRIOR approved scheme's own amenity/design findings, rather than reassessing the whole development from scratch
· distinguishes cleanly between changes that increase floor area/projection (treated as material, requiring full reassessment) and purely cosmetic material changes (treated as non-material without further scrutiny)
· flags missing bedspace-count or room-configuration documentation as a discrete assessment obstacle rather than assuming compliance from the applicant's own description
· precisely what is changing in a non-material amendment (internal layout only, vs external material, vs footprint/floor area) as the first structuring question
· whether the specific change would alter neighbouring-amenity or design findings already made for the parent permission
· whether submitted floor plans state the proposed number of bedspaces per bedroom, without which an effective assessment cannot be made
“the proposal internal alteration would not increase the footprint of the proposed flat which was already considered to be large enough to be a two bedroom unit (when assessed against Policy D6 of the London Plan) nor would it introduce any new windows etc which would require a reassessment of the proposed flat on amenity grounds”
24/01998/FULMIN
“the alterations are considered to be acceptable in terms of design and layout. Given the design and layout of the alterations, it is considered that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on neighbouring amenity”
24/01998/FULMIN
Measured from 88 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 88 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[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, 2023–26. · 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 88 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.