Nicole McShane.
Last recorded decision Oct 2020 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 80% across 114 decided planning applications, spanning 20 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×.
McShane structures her amenity findings around a two-neighbour comparison (the property to each side plus properties to the rear), consistently checking whether prior pre-application advice was addressed before assessing the final scheme. She gives explicit weight to garden orientation and to whether an existing structure being replaced already caused the impact now assessed.
· checks whether concerns raised at a prior pre-application stage were addressed in the submitted scheme
· assesses amenity loss against what the EXISTING structure already caused, not just the proposed new form in isolation
· gives explicit weight to a rear garden's compass orientation in reaching a daylight/sunlight conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether issues raised at pre-application stage have actually been addressed in the submitted scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: comparison of the proposed impact against what the existing structure it replaces already caused
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the rear garden's compass orientation as a factor in the daylight/sunlight conclusion
“This site was subject to pre-application advice (ref: 19/01315/PREAPP) which was not supportive of many aspects of the two storey extension presented as part of that proposal… This subject application appears to have addressed the Officer comments provided at the preapplication stage”
20/00012/FUL
“the height of the proposed extension at the boundary with No 25 will be reduced by approx. 1m thus thereby reducing any impacts on the amenity of this property”
20/00033/HH
Measured from 139 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 139 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.[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. · 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 139 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.