Paulo Tavares.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Bexley with an approval rate of 98% across 84 decided planning applications, spanning 10 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.
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×.
Tavares' caseload is dominated by large-scale Green Belt householder extensions, and he is distinctive for explicitly testing the NPPF paragraph 154(c) 'disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building' exception, treating the size question as a distinct, named legal test rather than folding it into a general design assessment. He states dimensional findings (width/depth/height to eaves) precisely for each structural element of multi-part extensions in sequence, and is notably attentive to whether new development is 'largely like for like from the perspective of the street scene' when a replacement structure directly substitutes an existing feature (e.g. conservatory replacement), treating substitution differently from net-new additions.
· explicitly tests NPPF paragraph 154(c)'s 'disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building' Green Belt exception as a named, distinct legal test rather than folding size into general design commentary
· states precise dimensional findings (width/depth/eaves height) for EACH structural element of a multi-part scheme in sequence, building a cumulative massing picture
· distinguishes 'largely like for like' replacement structures (e.g. conservatory-for-extension substitutions) from net-new additions, applying a lighter-touch assessment to genuine substitutions
· whether a Green Belt extension's cumulative additions are disproportionate to the size of the original building under NPPF paragraph 154(c), tested as a distinct question
· the precise width, depth and eaves height of each individual structural element in a multi-part scheme
· whether a proposed structure is a genuine like-for-like replacement of an existing feature (e.g. a conservatory) rather than a net-new addition, since this affects the level of scrutiny applied
“The development does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building”
25/01802/FUL
“Regarding form, mass, bulk and overall scale, the proposal is largely like for like from the perspective of the street scene”
25/02605/FUL
Measured from 64 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 64 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 10 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[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, 2025–26. · 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 64 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.