Janeek James.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 83% across 154 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×.
James's major-application reports cite the relevant NPPF chapter and specific London Plan/Local Plan policy numbers in a structured chain before applying them, and her refusals are explicit that ONE specific policy failure (e.g. Policy H4 family-housing protection) is sufficient to warrant refusal even where other aspects are acceptable.
· chains NPPF chapter, London Plan policy number and Local Plan policy number together before applying them to the specific facts
· identifies ONE decisive policy non-compliance (e.g. loss of family-sized housing under Policy H4) as sufficient grounds for refusal on its own
· distinguishes a proposal's acceptability 'in principle' from its acceptability once amenity or design harm is separately assessed
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific NPPF chapter, London Plan policy number and Local Plan policy number chained together, not a general policy reference
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a single policy failure alone (e.g. loss of family housing) is sufficient grounds for refusal
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: design/character harm assessed as its own distinct ground, separate from neighbouring amenity
“Policy H4 encourages the protection of 3 bed and 4+ bed family housing and as the proposed property fails to satisfy policy H4 by demonstrating it is suitable for a subdivision or conversion, this application would be considered not acceptable”
24/00980/FUL
“the officers deem the overall massing and design to be a negative contribution to the property… The proposed addition would therefore, result in undue harm to the character and appearance of the property and possibly the surrounding area”
24/00707/FUL
Measured from 73 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 73 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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, 2021–26. · 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 73 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.