Joshua Ogunleye.
Last recorded decision Jul 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Bexley with an approval rate of 75% across 71 decided planning applications, spanning 11 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 Bexley reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Ogunleye's caseload includes granny-annexe outbuildings, nursery/childcare enforcement-adjacent regularisation applications and infill new-build schemes, and he is distinctive for engaging directly with the practical ANCILLARY-use question on annexes — explicitly noting that physical detachment and independent access do not by themselves undermine ancillary status, reasoning through function rather than form. On unauthorised commercial parking expansion (a nursery site) he clearly separates the part of the site benefiting from an EARLIER permission from the part that has 'spread' beyond it without consent, applying different legal treatment (immunity vs active enforcement risk) to each. He gives explicit, itemised space-standard failure findings (stating the exact required vs provided GIA figure) rather than a general 'undersized' conclusion when refusing on internal space grounds.
· on granny-annexe/ancillary outbuildings, explicitly reasons that physical detachment and independent access alone do not undermine ancillary status, focusing the test on function rather than form
· on unauthorised commercial-site expansion, clearly separates the portion covered by an EARLIER permission from the portion that has 'spread' beyond it without consent, applying different legal treatment to each
· states explicit itemised space-standard figures (exact required vs provided GIA in sqm) when refusing on internal space grounds, rather than a general 'undersized' conclusion
· whether an outbuilding's function (not its physical detachment or independent access) supports genuine ancillary use to the main dwelling
· which specific portion of a commercial site benefits from an earlier permission, and which portion has expanded beyond it without consent
· the exact required vs provided Gross Internal Area (sqm) for a proposed residential unit under the National Described Space Standards
“the fact that the annex is detached (and can be access independently of the dwelling) does not form a reason for refusal and is not considered to alter the ancillary function and design”
23/01219/FUL
“The London plan requires that a two bed 4-person unit on two floors has an minimum GIA of 79sqm. The proposed unit would only provide 71.35sqm as such it would not comply with the minimum London Plan space standards”
23/01453/FUL
Measured from 60 published Bexley 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 60 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 11 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–24.[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 Bexley planning register and published decision notices, 2020–24. · 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 — Bexley's decision-notice parsing is limited coverage, so no borough or officer figure is shown.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 60 published Bexley 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.