Chloe Selwood.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 61% across 96 decided planning applications, spanning 22 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×.
Selwood breaks multi-storey/multi-phase extensions into their component parts (ground floor, first floor, dormer) and assesses each separately before a combined conclusion, drawing on a named appeal Inspector's finding about render finish acceptability. She gives explicit consultee attribution (Environmental Health, LBN Strategic Design Manager) when a technical objection or condition is decisive.
· assesses each construction phase/element of a multi-storey extension (ground/first floor/dormer) as its own labelled sub-section before a combined conclusion
· cites a named Planning Inspectorate appeal finding on a specific design question (e.g. render finish) as a direct precedent
· names the specific consultee (Environmental Health, LBN Strategic Design Manager) whose comment is decisive to a condition or objection
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each construction element of a complex scheme assessed as its own component before an overall conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a named Inspector's appeal finding directly on point for a design question
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which named consultee's comment is the actual basis for a proposed condition
“The Council reserve some concerns relating to the overall bulk and massing of the development, but accept the opinion of the Inspector that determined the appeal at 67 Lichfield Road, who considered the current design of all three storeys of development being finished in cream render adds to the visual appearance being more unacceptable than the dimensio”
17/00750/PREAPP
“The London Borough of Newham's Environmental Health (EH) Team has assessed the proposal for the extraction flue and have provided a response. The comments have stated that there is no objection to the extraction pipe in principle, but recommends two conditions”
20/00184/FUL
Measured from 81 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 81 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 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 Newham 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 — 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 81 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.