Development Intent
AtlasBarking and DagenhamOfficersMishga Marshall
Case officer · Barking And Dagenham Planning

Mishga Marshall.

Last recorded decision Sep 2024 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Barking And Dagenham with an approval rate of 73% across 86 decided planning applications, spanning 18 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer86 decisions73% 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 →
86
Applications
2023–24
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%55%202375%2024
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate73% · 8th 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 reports210 officer reports parsed
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
5%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
55%
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.

Privacy & overlooking
1.69× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.45× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
1× borough avg
Materials & detailing
0.95× borough avg
Character & heritage
0.87× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Marshall's caseload has a notable concentration of Certificate of Lawful Development (Existing use) applications relying on the four-year immunity rule under Section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and she is methodical about the specific evidentiary trail needed to establish lawfulness by time — cross-referencing aerial imagery dated to a specific pre-application year against the applicant's own documentary evidence, and independently consulting Council Tax records where gaps exist in the applicant's timeline rather than accepting it at face value. She also handles accessibility-driven householder schemes (step-free ramps) with an explicit balancing-language structure, weighing character harm against quality-of-life benefit rather than treating either as automatically decisive.

Observable habits

· cross-references aerial imagery dated to a specific year against the applicant's own documentary evidence when assessing the four-year immunity rule under Section 171B, rather than accepting the applicant's account alone

· independently consults Council Tax records to fill evidentiary gaps in an applicant's lawfulness timeline where the submitted evidence has 'gaps in the dates provided'

· on accessibility-driven schemes (ramps, step-free access), explicitly frames the decision as a balance between character harm and quality-of-life/accessibility benefit rather than treating either factor as automatically decisive

What their reports consistently look for

· whether aerial imagery and other dated evidence corroborate the applicant's claimed four-year timeline for an unauthorised structure or use under Section 171B

· whether Council Tax or other independent records can resolve gaps in the applicant's own documentary evidence of a use's duration

· whether an accessibility-driven alteration's character impact is outweighed by the quality-of-life/accessibility benefit it provides to the specific applicant

Assigned Mishga Marshall 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

Although much evidence has been provided, the officers have noticed some gaps in the dates provided by the applicant. With that in mind, the officers made a consultation with Council Tax, to help determine the timeframe

23/01432/CLUE

when the impact of the proposal is weight against the reasons for appying for it, the imrovement to the quality of life and assessibility the extension will bring to the home onwer, this superseeds the partical difference in its appearance

23/01439/HSE

Measured from 210 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 210 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4
12 times cited
CP3
12 times cited
BP8
12 times cited
BP11
12 times cited
D6housing q ua lit y a nd st a nd a rd s, a nd / or it s relev a nt
11 times cited
D14
9 times cited
CM1
9 times cited
CP2
9 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–24.[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
24/01111/HSE
Householder Planning Permission
Approved
2024-09-12
24/01116/HSE
Householder Planning Permission
Approved
2024-09-06
24/01111/HSE
Householder Planning Permission
Approved
2024-09-12
24/01116/HSE
Householder Planning Permission
Approved
2024-09-06
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 86 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Cityscape PA
2. Archway Building Consultancy Limited
3. Mr F Wasti (Tech Engineering (UK) Ltd.)
4. Stylish Interiors & Architecture
At a glance
OfficerMishga Marshall
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications86 (2023–24)
Approval rate73%
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, 2023–24. · 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 210 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.