Eva Poczachowska.
Active — last recorded decision Dec 2025
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 53% across 51 decided planning applications, spanning 16 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×.
Poczachowska's reports repeatedly compare a current retrospective/amended scheme against the SPECIFIC prior application it deviates from, naming the reference and the exact change (e.g. roof form). Her town-centre refusals cite named Local Plan policy numbers (SP6, SP7) on centre-clustering and design quality together rather than either alone.
· names the specific prior application reference and the exact element that has changed (e.g. roof form) when assessing a retrospective or amended scheme
· pairs town-centre clustering policy (SP6/SP7) with a design-quality finding rather than treating either as sufficient alone
· gives a precise room-by-room account of which habitable rooms lose light/outlook and by how much
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific prior application reference and exact element changed, for a retrospective or amended scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: town-centre clustering policy considered alongside, not instead of, design quality
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a room-by-room account of daylight/outlook loss rather than a general amenity statement
“This is a retrospective application that proposes alterations to the roofs of previously approved ground and first floor extensions. The size and massing of the extension remains subservient and proportionate to the main dwelling”
19/02009/HH
“the works create a sense of enclosure and reduces the level outlook from neighbouring properties. This is especially true for the residential premises at 425 and 419 Green Street”
20/00476/FUL
Measured from 47 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 47 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 16 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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, 2020–25. · 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 47 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.