Development Intent
AtlasHaveringOfficersRaphael Adenegan
Case officer · Havering Planning

Raphael Adenegan.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Havering with an approval rate of 73% across 37 decided planning applications, spanning 12 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer37 decisions73% approvalSave
Havering · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
37
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%50%202075%202180%202240%2023100%2024100%202567%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate73% · 16th of 34
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports349 officer reports parsed
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
5%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
69%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Havering's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Havering reports. Attention, not stance.

Precedent & consistency
1.31× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
1.12× borough avg
Transport & parking
0.97× borough avg
Materials & detailing
0.96× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
0.95× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

Assigned Raphael Adenegan on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

Havering Local Plan 2021 Policy 25 advises that applications for telecommunications equipment will be considered in the context of the Framework, however expressly requires that development not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the borough's heritage assets or the natural environment.

M0007.24 · recommendation: That prior approval of the Local Planning Authority is required for the siting and appearance of the development under Part 24 of Schedule 2 of the Town & Count

Having considered the above, Officers do not consider that the additional dwelling which creates a new row of terraces would not be so incongruous and by extension harmful to the character of the street scene to warrant refusal.

P0028.24 · recommendation: It is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for the reason(s) given at the end of the report

The access/dropped kerb would have to be moved over toward 1 Margaret Road and would result in the loss of a street tree which would be unacceptable.

P0033.24 · recommendation: It is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for the reason(s) given at the end of the report

Measured from 349 published Havering 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 349 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

26Urban design
164 times cited
7Residential design and amenity
158 times cited
D4
122 times cited
24Parking provision and design
121 times cited
D1
118 times cited
T6
98 times cited
34Managing pollution
34 times cited
T6.1
21 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
P1087.25
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-04-24
P1377.22
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-04-10
P1087.25
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-04-24
P1377.22
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-04-10
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 37 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Alison Crooks Integrated Skills Limited Bell House
2. Ms Louise Morton Quadrant Town Planning Ltd The Office
3. Mr Matthew Blythin DHA Planning Ltd, Eclipse House Eclipse Park, Sittingbourne Road Maidstone ME14
At a glance
OfficerRaphael Adenegan
BoroughHavering
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications37 (2020–26)
Approval rate73%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Havering planning register and published decision notices, 2020–26. · methodology
  2. [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. [3]Condition load — Havering's decision-notice parsing is limited coverage, so no borough or officer figure is shown.
  4. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 349 published Havering 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.