Thanusan Gunabalasingham.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 73% across 52 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×.
Gunabalasingham's reports open with a short standard framing sentence ('extensions… can facilitate additional living space… acceptable in principle subject to…') before the case-specific assessment, and he gives precise boundary-relative positioning (which neighbour's boundary the extension sits on, and by how much it extends beyond a specific neighbour's own rear elevation) as the basis for neighbourly-impact conclusions.
· opens with a standard 'acceptable in principle subject to design' framing sentence before the case-specific findings
· states precisely which neighbour's boundary an extension sits on and by how much it extends beyond that neighbour's own rear elevation
· credits a resubmission's reduction in depth/removal of a roof terrace as directly restoring lost amenity space, not merely reducing harm
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which neighbour's boundary the extension sits on and the precise amount it extends beyond that neighbour's own rear elevation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a resubmission's reduction in scale is credited as restoring amenity space, not just lessening harm
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the extension's material/brick choice blends with the existing terrace roofline
“By reason of its location on the boundary with No. 57 Water Lane, the proposal does not detrimentally impact on No. 53 Water Lane. By reason of the modest depth of the extension and that it only extends marginally beyond the rear elevation of No. 57 Water Lane”
20/00035/HH
“the reduction in scale of the rear works and removal of the roof terrace, proposed here, will greatly improve outlook, and is far less overbearing that what has thus far been built”
20/00103/HH
Measured from 32 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 32 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 32 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.