Jo Johnson.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 48% across 53 decided planning applications, spanning 16 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×.
Johnson's major town-centre/roof-extension refusals give a granular, standards-based critique of internal quality (floor-to-ceiling heights measured in metres against the recommended minimum, window sizing per room) rather than a general design objection, and her summary sections explicitly state that a design failure alone is sufficient without needing an amenity finding.
· measures internal floor-to-ceiling heights in metres against the specific recommended minimum (2.5m) rather than a qualitative judgement
· identifies individual undersized windows/rooms by name (e.g. the second-floor bedroom) as the basis for a quality-of-accommodation objection
· states explicitly that a design or place-making failure is sufficient grounds for refusal on its own, independent of other considerations
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the measured floor-to-ceiling height against the specific recommended minimum, not a general 'adequate' finding
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which individual room/window is undersized, named specifically rather than described generally
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a design failure alone, independent of other findings, is sufficient grounds for refusal
“the plans specify floor to ceiling heights of 2.44m at ground floor and first floor, while the floor to ceiling height at second floor would only be 2.3m; well below the recommended minimum”
20/00713/FUL
“the design components of this proposal are considered unacceptable… No efforts have been made to enhance the visual amenity and character of the public realm as required by policy”
20/00713/FUL
Measured from 46 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 46 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 16 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 46 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.