Temilayo Ajayi.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Bexley with an approval rate of 99% across 184 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×.
Ajayi's caseload is dominated by householder extensions and outbuildings within conservation areas (frequently Christ Church), and she is distinctive for treating design acceptability and neighbour-amenity as clearly separated sub-headed tests every time, opening each with 'Located to the rear/side, the proposed extension would [not] affect the street scene' before moving to a neighbour-by-neighbour amenity check that explicitly references any EXISTING extensions on the affected properties as the comparator. She routinely cites the specific London Plan and Bexley Local Plan policy pair (D1/D4 and SP5/DP11) together in her design conclusions rather than one policy alone, and is notably willing to refuse highway-access applications (dropped kerbs/crossovers) on safety grounds even where multiple neighbouring properties already have similar unauthorised or historic crossovers, treating each application on its own technical merits rather than by local precedent.
· structures every report as two explicitly separated tests — street-scene/design first ('located to the rear...would not affect the street scene'), then a distinct neighbour-by-neighbour amenity check referencing each neighbour's OWN existing extensions as the comparator
· cites the London Plan/Bexley Local Plan design policy PAIR together (D1/D4 and SP5/DP11) in design conclusions, rather than a single anchor policy
· on highway-access refusals, explicitly declines to treat neighbouring properties' existing (sometimes unauthorised or historic) crossovers as a precedent, assessing each application on its own technical/safety merits
· whether the proposed extension/outbuilding would be visible from the street scene, assessed as a threshold question before any amenity check
· whether each individually named affected neighbour already has a comparable existing extension, used to calibrate the marginal amenity impact
· whether a vehicle can safely enter and leave a proposed crossover in forward gear, assessed strictly on the application's own merits regardless of neighbouring precedent
“The proposal is therefore considered to accord with London Plan Policies D1 and D4, and Bexley Local Plan Policies SP5 and DP11 regarding achieving high-quality design”
25/02548/FUL
“It is acknowledged that a number of properties along the road benefit from vehicular crossovers, however planning permission sought on these are either unclear with no history, have now become established over time or have a larger front”
26/00067/FUL
Measured from 191 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 191 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 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 191 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.