Kimberly Broom.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 55% across 54 decided planning applications, spanning 18 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×.
Broom explicitly names which policy (typically Policy SP8, ensuring neighbourly development) governs her amenity assessment before applying it, and her refusals identify a scheme as setting an unwelcome precedent for a street where that form of development is not yet established, distinct from purely amenity-based objections.
· names Policy SP8 (ensuring neighbourly development) explicitly as the governing policy before the amenity assessment that follows
· raises a 'precedent for the street' concern where a proposed form of extension is not yet established locally, as a design ground distinct from amenity harm
· notes the local pattern of existing extensions along a street as context for whether a scale is subservient
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: explicit citation of Policy SP8 as the governing framework before the amenity findings that follow
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed extension type is already established on the street, as a precedent concern distinct from amenity
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the existing local pattern of extensions as context for judging subservience of scale
“Policy SP8 of the Local Plan has specific regard to ensuring neighbourly development. The proposal seeks to erect a first floor rear extension which would have a depth of approximately 4.2 metres and height of 5.5m along the boundary with No. 51 Hubert Road”
20/00841/HH
“two storey rear extensions are not a common feature on Nelson Street, or Sussex Road which runs parallel to the property at the rear. As such, any extension of this nature will set precedence for future development of the street”
20/01818/HH
Measured from 50 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 50 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 18 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 50 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.