Robert Ward.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 81% across 89 decided planning applications, spanning 22 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×.
Ward handles a notably diverse case mix (householder extensions, telecoms prior approval, CLP, LLDC major sites) and adapts his framing to the application type each time — citing LLDC Local Plan policy codes for telecoms sites, GPDO parapet-wall criteria for CLP refusals, and standard neighbourly-development language for extensions — rather than defaulting to one template.
· cites the LLDC Local Plan (2020) policy codes specifically (rather than Newham's borough-wide Local Plan) when the site sits within the LLDC area
· gives an explicit visual-impact finding for telecoms/mast installations based on street-level visibility and separation from pedestrian routes
· identifies the specific dimension (e.g. eaves height exceeding the original dwellinghouse) that fails a named GPDO criterion for a CLP refusal
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which local plan (LLDC vs Newham borough-wide) governs the site, and its own specific policy codes
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: street-level visibility and pedestrian/highway safety findings for telecoms installations
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact GPDO criterion (e.g. eaves height limit) that is or is not met for a CLP application
“Within the LLDC Local Plan (2020) policies BN1 and S6 are relevant when assessing applications related to Telecommunications Equipment”
17/00122/FUL_LLDC
“A.1 (d) � The height of the eaves would exceed the height of the original dwellinghouse. A dormer extension, to constitute extension development under Class B, effectively needs to demonstrate it is visibly set in from the party/parapet walls”
25/01753/CLP
Measured from 73 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 73 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–26.[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, 2024–26. · 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 73 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.