Eric Pang.
Active — last recorded decision Nov 2025
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 77% across 438 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×.
Pang writes tightly against Newham's own checklist headings (Achieving a High Quality of Urban Design / Delivering Neighbourly development / Delivering Sustainability / Meeting the needs of Homeowners), and reaches for a named comparator building on the same street before assessing an extension's own merits. His refusals on Woodgrange Conservation Area cases are built specifically on a named LBN Design officer's own wording about window/frame thickness rather than a generic conservation objection.
· cites a specific comparator extension on the same street, sometimes with its own application reference, before judging the proposal's scale acceptable
· quotes the LBN Design/Conservation officer's own consultation wording verbatim when it is decisive to a conservation-area refusal
· separates outlook, daylight, overshadowing and overbearing into distinct per-neighbour findings rather than one blended amenity paragraph
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a directly comparable neighbouring extension, ideally with its own application reference, to test scale
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the Design/Conservation consultee's own wording where a conservation-area impact is the deciding issue
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: per-neighbour breakdown of outlook/daylight/overshadowing/overbearing under the report's own headings rather than a single amenity summary
“LBN Design officer echoes points raised within this guide, stating the proposed window frames appear to be significantly thicker than the existing, therefore the proposals are not considered to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area”
22/00554/FUL
“Officers welcome the setback from the boundary of no.69 and the proposed hip roof of the first floor rear extensions it would match with the character and design of the existing dwellinghouse and surrounding area”
08/01209/FUL
Measured from 376 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 376 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–25.[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, 2022–25. · 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 376 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.