Orla Bermingham.
Last recorded decision Jul 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Barking And Dagenham with an approval rate of 59% across 265 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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×.
Bermingham's caseload includes a notable share of dwelling-to-flats conversions and infill schemes alongside routine householder extensions, and she is distinctive for reproducing the Access Officer's own detailed accessibility consultee comments verbatim, flat-by-flat, rather than summarising them into a single design paragraph — flagging specific corridor widths and door-swing conflicts per unit. On multi-flat conversions she checks each flat's internal space standards independently against the technical housing standards table, and is willing to find some individual flats compliant and others not within the same scheme, rather than reaching one combined verdict for the whole conversion.
· reproduces the Access Officer's detailed accessibility consultee comments flat-by-flat (specific corridor widths, door-swing conflicts) rather than summarising into one general design paragraph
· assesses each individual flat within a multi-unit conversion scheme against the technical housing standards independently, reaching separate compliant/non-compliant verdicts per flat rather than one combined judgement for the whole scheme
· cites the applicant's own prior comparable approval on the same or a similar element (e.g. an earlier approved conservatory of similar scale) as a consistency anchor for judging a new but related element of the same application
· whether each individual flat within a conversion scheme independently meets the technical housing standards for gross internal area, bedroom dimensions and storage
· specific Access Officer concerns about corridor widths, door-swing directions and manoeuvring space for each flat
· whether the applicant has a directly comparable prior approval on the same site that establishes a consistency benchmark for judging a related element
“The floor plans fail to display the proposed number of bedspaces per bedroom and as such, officers were unable to make an effective assessment”
20/01126/FULL
“Officers acknowledge that the applicant has a previously been approved an application for a rear conservatory (17/01356/FUL). This was of similar scale and design to the proposed single storey rear extension”
20/01126/FULL
Measured from 244 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 244 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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, 2020–21. · 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 244 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.