Blair Leung.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 91% across 111 decided planning applications, spanning 21 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 Newham reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Leung is explicit about which permitted-development class or 'lawful by virtue of time' argument underlies an approval, and cross-checks previous evidence (photographs, correspondence) submitted for an earlier related application on the same site before accepting a claim about an existing structure.
· states explicitly whether an existing structure is being treated as lawful by virtue of time, and what evidence (photographs, plans) supports that
· cross-checks a claim made in the current application against evidence or correspondence submitted for a PRIOR related application on the same site
· flags the future permitted-development implication of an approval (e.g. potential to build above it) as a distinct 'further material consideration'
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: explicit evidence (photographs, correspondence) supporting a claim that an existing structure is lawful by virtue of time
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: consistency between the current submission and evidence given for a prior related application on the same site
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the future permitted-development consequence an approval would unlock, flagged as its own consideration
“the same issue was revisited. The submitted existing and proposed plans clearly indicate that no outbuilding is present within the rear garden. To confirm this, the agent provided photographs of the rear garden, as requested, which demonstrate that the outbuilding has indeed been demolished”
25/01665/PREHH
“Of particular concern in this instance would be the ability to construct a further extension above the first-floor extension once built noting the provisions of Class B of the General Permitted Development Order”
25/01417/PREHH
Measured from 76 published Newham 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 76 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[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 Newham planning register and published decision notices, 2025–26. · 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 — mean effective conditions attached to Newham 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 76 published Newham 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.