Habib Neshat.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Havering with an approval rate of 70% across 273 decided planning applications, spanning 26 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 Havering reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
“Consequently, therefore, the massing and scaling of this element of the proposal are deemed acceptable and it is not considered the first floor rear extension would be harmful to the character and appearance of the rear garden scene.”
P0007.24 · recommendation: It is recommended that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the condition(s) given at the end of the report
“It is considered that the single storey rear extension would not be materially harmful to the amenity of neighbouring properties or their rear gardens, as its depth and height would comply with the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD.”
P0008.24 · recommendation: It is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for the reason(s) given at the end of the report
“The extensions would also disrupt the existing detached nature of the dwelling harmful to the character of the host dwelling and its contribution to the wider street scene contrary to Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan and the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD (2011).”
P0012.24 · recommendation: It is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for the reason(s) given at the end of the report
Measured from 291 published Havering 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 291 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 26 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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 Havering planning register and published decision notices, 2020–26. · 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 — Havering'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 291 published Havering 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.