Charlotte Codd.
Last recorded decision Apr 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Barking And Dagenham with an approval rate of 65% across 225 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 Barking And Dagenham reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Codd's caseload is dominated by householder extensions and loft conversions, and she is notable for structuring each scheme into clearly separated sub-elements (side extension, rear extension, garage conversion) each assessed against the SPD on its own terms rather than as one combined proposal, closing each report with an explicit 'Concluding Statement' summary sentence that most other officers' reports omit. She pays close attention to how a scheme interacts with existing site constraints beyond the neighbouring dwellings themselves — highway curb relocations, community-centre boundaries, or a curve in the road that justifies departing from the SPD's normal setback guidance.
· structures multi-element schemes (side extension + rear extension + garage conversion) into clearly separated sub-assessments, each checked against the SPD independently, rather than one combined verdict
· closes reports with an explicit 'Concluding Statement' summary sentence stating overall compliance, a structural habit distinct from most peers' reports which end mid-topic
· identifies non-neighbour site constraints (a curve in the road, a highway dropped-curb relocation, a community centre boundary) that justify departing from the SPD's standard setback guidance, rather than applying the guidance mechanically
· whether each distinct element of a multi-part scheme (side extension, rear extension, garage conversion) independently complies with the relevant SPD guidance for that element type
· whether a site-specific constraint — a road curve, a dropped-curb relocation, a shared boundary with a non-residential neighbour — justifies departing from the SPD's standard setback/alignment guidance
· whether the proposal's overall design, taken as a whole, warrants an explicit closing statement of compliance with the aforementioned policies
“To conclude, Officers find all elements of the proposed development acceptable, as discussed above. The proposed development is found to be compliant with the aforementioned policies”
21/01507/HSE
“the location of the dwelling at a curve in the road means a side extension would only be suitable set back from the front elevation so as to not impose on the pavement”
21/01491/HSE
Measured from 417 published Barking And Dagenham 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 417 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–23.[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 Barking And Dagenham planning register and published decision notices, 2021–23. · 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 Barking And Dagenham 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 417 published Barking And Dagenham 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.