Development Intent
AtlasBarking and DagenhamOfficersElizabeth Mullner
Planning Atlas›Barking And Dagenham›Elizabeth Mullner
Case officer · Barking And Dagenham Planning

Elizabeth Mullner.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Barking And Dagenham with an approval rate of 61% across 87 decided planning applications, spanning 18 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer87 decisions61% approvalSave
Barking And Dagenham · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
87
Applications
2025–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%57%202563%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate61% · 20th of 29
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports90 officer reports parsed
—
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
—
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
8%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
51%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Barking And Dagenham's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Barking And Dagenham reports. Attention, not stance.

Noise & disturbance
1.4× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.16× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
0.82× borough avg
Character & heritage
0.76× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.72× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

Assigned Elizabeth Mullner on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“The extension would have a depth of 4m. It would have a flat roof with parapet walls, a maximum height of 4m, and an eaves height of 3m. No neighbour objections were received to this proposal”

25/01421/PRIEXT

“The extension would have a depth of 6m. More than 50% of the curtilage of the original home would be retained. No neighbour objections were received to this proposal”

25/01429/PRIEXT

Measured from 90 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 90 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D1
1 times cited
D4
1 times cited
D5
1 times cited
D6housing q ua lit y a nd st a nd a rd s, a nd / or it s relev a nt
1 times cited
D14
1 times cited
DMD1Securing high-quality design
1 times cited
DMD5Householder extensions and alterations
1 times cited
DMSI3Nuisance
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
16
69%
8
33%
8
75%
7
60%
7
67%
7
50%
6
50%
6
40%
5
0%
3
100%
3
100%
2
100%
2
50%
2
100%
2
50%
1
100%
1
100%
1
–
16
69%
8
33%
8
75%
Show all 18 rows
7
60%
7
67%
7
50%
6
50%
6
40%
5
0%
3
100%
3
100%
2
100%
2
50%
2
100%
2
50%
1
100%
1
100%
1
–

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
25/01439/FULL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-04
26/00229/FULL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-04
25/01439/FULL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-04
26/00229/FULL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-04
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 87 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. (none) Civils Consulting Ltd
2. Livarch Ltd
3. MAN Design and Construction LTD
4. Xline Architecture Ltd
At a glance
OfficerElizabeth Mullner
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications87 (2025–26)
Approval rate61%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Barking And Dagenham planning register and published decision notices, 2025–26. · methodology
  2. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 90 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.