Daniel Woodford.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 55% across 101 decided planning applications, spanning 20 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×.
Woodford opens several reports with an 'Understanding the application' framing section that sets out the site's own enforcement/appeal history before any policy assessment, and gives direct weight to a Planning Inspectorate appeal's own findings when re-assessing a similar or resubmitted scheme.
· opens with an explicit account of the site's own enforcement case or appeal history before any policy assessment
· quotes an Inspector's own appeal decision wording when it is directly relevant to the current scheme
· distinguishes windows/doors being retained (regularised) from genuinely new development within the same report
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the site's own enforcement case or appeal reference as the necessary context before any policy assessment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an Inspector's own appeal wording where directly applicable to the current scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether works are genuinely new development or a regularisation of what already exists
“This application seeks to regularise the varying windows and doors currently at the application site following the partially approved application 17/00579/HH and the approval of application 17/03224/AOD”
17/00579/HH
“The footprint and depth of the conservatory would be relatively limited, and not dissimilar to those of similar long extensions to the rear of other properties in the terrace… the [...] development would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupants of 16”
08/01167/FUL
Measured from 94 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 94 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 20 rows
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.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Newham planning register and published decision notices, 2020–26. · 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 — 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 94 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.