Muniba Tariq.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 74% across 41 decided planning applications, spanning 16 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.
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×.
Tariq's reports are notably concise and consistently structured (Achieving a High Quality Design / Delivering Neighbourly Development, each a short paragraph), giving explicit weight to whether an extension's scale is common within the immediate vicinity and whether it is visible from the public realm at all before reaching a character conclusion.
· explicitly states whether an extension is visible from the public realm/streetscene as a distinct step before assessing its character impact
· checks whether the proposed scale is already present via similar extensions in the immediate vicinity before accepting it as appropriate
· gives a short, direct separation-distance justification for why rear neighbours are unaffected, rather than a lengthy discussion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the extension would be visible from the public realm at all, as a first step before character assessment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: comparable extensions already present in the immediate vicinity as the benchmark for scale
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the separation distance to rear neighbours as the basis for ruling out significant impact
“It is further noted that the extension would not be readily visible in publicly accessible views and would therefore not unduly impact the streetscene”
26/00131/HH
“noting there are similar single-storey extensions within the vicinity, the extension would be appropriate within the context”
26/00131/HH
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 cited most on decision notices for applications Muniba Tariq decided — 22 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.
Show all 16 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2026.[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, 2026. · 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.