Luke Tassell.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Bexley with an approval rate of 91% across 531 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×.
Tassell's caseload is dominated by householder extensions, many within the Metropolitan Green Belt or the Christ Church conservation area, and he is distinctive for running the NPPF Green Belt 'proportionality' test (paragraph 152/154) as a routine first step even on modest rear extensions, checking whether the addition is 'subservient in scale' and 'tucked behind the existing dwellinghouse' before reaching the openness/inappropriate-development question. On neighbouring-amenity impact he consistently frames marginal harm against the STEPPED nature of adjoining plots and existing extensions on neighbouring properties, quantifying differences in projection to within 0.1m (e.g. 'will only surpass the extension of equal dimension on 26 Honeyden by 1.5m') rather than applying the Design and Development Control Guidelines depth threshold as an automatic cut-off. He treats equalities/human rights assessments as a genuine balancing exercise rather than boilerplate, explicitly weighing a vulnerable occupier's need for step-free access or mobility-scooter storage against modest amenity harm to a specific named neighbour before recommending approval.
· runs the Green Belt 'proportionality'/openness test (NPPF paragraphs 152/154) as a first-step check even on ordinary householder extensions sited within or adjacent to the Green Belt, before any design or amenity assessment
· quantifies neighbouring-extension comparisons to the nearest 0.1-0.5m (e.g. how much a new extension would 'surpass' or fall short of an existing neighbouring extension of comparable form) rather than applying the DDCG depth guidance as a flat pass/fail line
· on equalities/human-rights cases (step-free access, mobility scooter storage), explicitly states the harm being weighed against the need and reaches a reasoned 'on balance' conclusion rather than reciting the PSED boilerplate alone
· whether the extension is 'subservient in scale' and sited behind the existing dwelling, as the Green Belt openness test's practical proxy
· the precise depth/height differential (in metres) between a proposed extension and an existing comparable extension on the stepped or staggered neighbouring plot
· whether a Design and Development Control Guideline depth exceedance is offset by an equivalent existing extension on the specific neighbour most affected
“the extension relates sympathetically to the existing dimensions of the kitchen protrusion and complementary conservatory. The rear extension will be subservient in scale and be tucked behind the existing dwellinghouse, therefore it would not constitute inappropriate development within the green belt”
23/03240/FUL
“the extension proposed on 28 Honeyden will only surpass the extension of equal dimension on 26 Honeyden by 1.5”
24/00171/FUL
Measured from 510 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 510 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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, 2022–26. · 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 510 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.