Zamzam Mohamoud.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 95% across 103 decided planning applications, spanning 19 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×.
Mohamoud gives detailed procedural reasoning for description-of-development amendments and re-consultation decisions, and applies a close Sui Generis/use-class test to non-standard commercial uses (private hire office bases) by directly assessing the day-to-day functional character of the use rather than its label alone.
· tests a non-standard use against its actual day-to-day functional character (visitor footfall, vehicle movements) rather than accepting the applicant's use-class label at face value
· gives an explicit, reasoned account of why a description-of-development amendment did or did not require re-consultation
· separates conditions recommended by named consultees (Environmental Health) from the officer's own planning judgement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the actual day-to-day functional character of a use (footfall, vehicle movements) rather than its stated use class alone
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an explicit reasoned decision on whether an amended description of development required re-consultation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which conditions originate from a named technical consultee versus the officer's own judgement
“Although a mini cab office would normally be considered Sui generis, the proposal would effectively constitute a person using their laptop and mobile phone at their home to operate their business remotely. No external alterations to the site are proposed”
25/02517/CLP
“Due to the amended description of development that has increased the scope of proposed works with potentially increased planning impacts, a reconsultation was undertaken by way of serving notification letters to neighbours”
25/02406/FUL
Measured from 64 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 64 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 19 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[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, 2025–26. · 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 64 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.