Conor Sheridan.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 76% across 62 decided planning applications, spanning 19 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×.
Sheridan gives a boundary-by-boundary comparison against the neighbour's OWN existing extension depth (rather than an abstract standard) when judging acceptability, and his HMO/change-of-use refusals weigh occupier transience and comings-and-goings pattern explicitly against a family-household baseline.
· compares a proposed extension's depth directly against the immediately adjoining neighbour's OWN existing extension depth as the acceptability benchmark
· reasons explicitly about occupier turnover/transience for HMO uses as a distinct amenity factor from noise levels alone
· treats a specific neighbour objection (e.g. about waste) as a contributing factor to refusal even where it would not independently justify one
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the immediately adjoining neighbour's own existing extension depth as the direct comparator for acceptability
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: occupier transience/turnover as a distinct HMO amenity consideration, not folded into noise alone
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a specific neighbour objection contributes to, without alone justifying, a refusal
“the new extension at No. 26 has a similar depth to the existing full-width rear extension at No. 28. This neighbouring rear extension spans the full width of the rear garden, with a depth of 3 metres”
23/02149/HH
“The likelihood is that occupiers of the HMO would be more transient, and have a lesser commitment to their home and neighbourhood. By contrast, a family is likely to share common activities and make more shared trips”
23/02261/FUL
Measured from 38 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 38 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 19 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[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, 2023–26. · 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 38 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.