Feddy Leung.
Active — last recorded decision Nov 2025
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 69% across 82 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×.
Leung breaks roof-form changes into separately labelled sub-elements (single-storey extension, mansard, rear dormer) and his housing-loss refusals apply Policy H4's replacement-floorspace test strictly, distinguishing a use that would be 'lived within' from conventional residential use for the purposes of that policy.
· labels each roof-form component (mansard, rear dormer, single-storey extension) as its own sub-heading before a combined character conclusion
· applies Policy H4's equivalent-floorspace replacement test strictly, rejecting a functionally-residential-but-different-use-class scheme as still a loss of housing
· separates 'supported in relation to quality of accommodation' from 'unacceptable in principle' as two distinct, independently stated findings
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each roof-form element (mansard, dormer, single-storey) labelled and assessed as its own component
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether Policy H4's equivalent-floorspace replacement test is met, even for a use that is 'lived within'
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: quality-of-accommodation findings kept explicitly distinct from the principle-of-development conclusion
“Whilst it is understood that the proposed use (C2) would be lived within by occupiers, it is considered as not conventional residential (hence being categorised into a different use class). Therefore, the proposed development would result in the loss of residential”
24/01022/FUL
“the proposal is supported in relation to quality of accommodation, however, this does not overcome the overall unacceptability of the proposal in principle”
24/01022/FUL
Measured from 36 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 36 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–25.[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, 2023–25. · 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 36 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.