Sandra Thekkeppurayil.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 83% across 217 decided planning applications, spanning 23 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×.
Thekkeppurayil writes concise, high-throughput assessments dominated by a standard 'minor impact, not undue harm' amenity conclusion across a large volume of small householder cases, but her one recorded refusal in this corpus (23/01792/FUL) is built specifically on the extension dominating BOTH the side and rear elevation together, distinguishing it from the single-elevation impacts she otherwise routinely accepts.
· gives a short, standardised amenity conclusion ('minor, would not result in undue harm') across most cases, reserving longer reasoning for genuine outliers
· identifies when a proposal's scale is a repeat of a previously refused scheme and states what has changed
· distinguishes single-elevation extensions from those that dominate multiple elevations simultaneously when judging character harm
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an amenity impact is minor enough to fall under the standard 'not undue harm' conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: what has changed since a previous refusal of the same or a similar scheme on the site
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an extension dominates a single elevation only, or both side and rear elevations together
“the scale and massing of the extension is considered to dominate both the side and rear elevation of the dwellinghouse, and would fail to respect the proportions of the original property, resulting in undue harm in terms of character and appearance”
23/01792/FUL
“It is acknowledged that the proposal would result in some loss of sunlight and daylight, however any such impact is considered only minor and would not result in undue harm to the amenities of the neighbouring properties”
24/01437/HH
Measured from 122 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 122 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 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 122 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.