Daniel Legg.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 97% across 45 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×.
Legg's corpus mixes routine householder extensions with school/education-estate expansion applications, and on the latter he gives an explicit playground/greenspace-loss versus functionality trade-off assessment, distinguishing a loss of area from a loss of function when judging acceptability.
· distinguishes a loss of playground/greenspace AREA from a loss of playground FUNCTION when judging whether a school-estate change is acceptable
· gives room-by-room accessibility findings (level thresholds, door widths) for school building extensions
· credits an alignment with a directly adjoining approved neighbouring extension's own depth/height as evidence of acceptable subservience
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a loss of playground/greenspace area also amounts to a loss of its FUNCTION, treated as a distinct question
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: specific accessibility features (level thresholds, door widths) for institutional/school buildings
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a directly adjoining approved neighbouring extension's own dimensions as the alignment benchmark
“Whilst it is acknowledged that there would be a loss of playground space, the area currently provides minimal recreational value and is minor in size proportionate to the playground and MUGA spaces which would retained”
22/00759/FUL
“The proposed extension would align with both the height and depth of the existing outrigger extension No.16 benefits from”
21/02686/HH
Measured from 21 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 across their decisions — how often each appears, and whether refusals citing it survive appeal.
In development — policy citations are coded from officer reports, and that parsing hasn't run for Newham yet. Nothing is shown until it is real.
Show all 21 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 21 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.