Development Intent
AtlasBarking and DagenhamOfficersVineeta Sharma
Case officer · Barking And Dagenham Planning

Vineeta Sharma.

Last recorded decision Jul 2020 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Barking And Dagenham with an approval rate of 59% across 27 decided planning applications, spanning 12 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer27 decisions59% 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 →
27
Applications
2020
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average

Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.

What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate59% · 23rd 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 reports52 officer reports parsed
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
42%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
76%
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.

Flooding & drainage
3.42× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.57× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.4× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.19× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
0.98× borough avg

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

Assigned Vineeta Sharma 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

In relation to all retail centre classifications, hot food takeaways (A5 Use Class) are restricted to a maximum of 15% of the measured frontage

20/01081/FULL

the application has failed to demonstrate compliance with the relevant guidance for such extraction systems. No information has been provided with regard to the level of noise or attempts to mitigate noise

20/01081/FULL

Measured from 52 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 52 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

CM1
5 times cited
HC6
4 times cited
CM2
4 times cited
BP11
4 times cited
BR9
4 times cited
DM11
4 times cited
E9
3 times cited
S18
3 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
Show all 12 rows
2
100%
2
50%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020.[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
20/01450/FULL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2020-09-08
20/01439/FULL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2020-09-07
20/01450/FULL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2020-09-08
20/01439/FULL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2020-09-07
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 27 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. ZAAVIA
2. Stylish Interiors & Architecture
3. Cityscape PA
4. Trima Architecture
At a glance
OfficerVineeta Sharma
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications27 (2020)
Approval rate59%
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, 2020. · 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 52 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.