Daniel Ambrose.
Last recorded decision Oct 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 88% across 162 decided planning applications, spanning 23 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 Newham reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Ambrose handles a high proportion of prior-approval/CLP/legislative cases and states the governing statutory test explicitly (s.55 development definition, GPDO class criteria) before applying it. On full applications he reads a resubmission against its own prior refusal reasons line by line, and distinguishes 'acceptable in principle but poor detail' from outright refusal.
· states the exact statutory test (s.55 TCPA definition of development, or the specific GPDO class/criterion) before applying it to the facts
· checks a resubmitted scheme's amendments directly against the previous refusal's stated reasons
· separates principle-of-development acceptability from detailed design/amenity findings as distinct conclusions
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise statutory provision (s.55, or a named GPDO Schedule/Part/Class) engaged before any factual assessment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a point-by-point comparison of a resubmission against the previous scheme's stated refusal reasons
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a dormer is genuinely set in from the parapet walls, not merely annotated as such
“the building up of the parapet walls, as indicated in the plans, would not merely constitute an extension to the roof, as the parapet walls do not form a part of the roof. This consideration has been held up at appeal”
22/01975/CLP
“Officers are satisfied that the proposed change from existing cafe to proposed mixed use comprising restaurant and offices does not represent `development' as defined under s.55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as both uses fall within Use Class E and no external alterations are proposed”
22/02003/CLP
Measured from 248 published Newham 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 248 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–23.[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 Newham planning register and published decision notices, 2021–23. · 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 — mean effective conditions attached to Newham decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 248 published Newham 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.