Joe Arnott.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 55% across 87 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×.
Arnott gives detailed BRE-based daylight/sunlight test results (specific VSC percentages per window) even where he ultimately refuses on other grounds, keeping the technical daylight finding and the character/amenity finding as clearly separate strands of reasoning, and his summaries explicitly state which single issue (rather than a combination) is decisive.
· reports specific BRE VSC/sunlight percentage results per window even when daylight is not the decisive refusal reason, keeping it as its own separate finding
· distinguishes 'acceptable in principle' from an outright design/amenity refusal, explaining that the two are independent conclusions
· identifies which SINGLE decisive issue (e.g. overbearing/outlook loss) tips a mixed-evidence case into refusal despite acceptable results elsewhere
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: specific BRE VSC/sunlight percentage results per assessed window, reported even when not decisive
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether 'acceptable in principle' and the final recommendation are explicitly treated as separate questions
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the single decisive issue that tips a mixed-evidence scheme into refusal
“The results confirm that all assessed windows retain between 86.03% to 99.95% of their current values. To this end, sufficient daylight levels are retained in accordance with BRE guidelines”
23/02030/FUL
“the occupiers of the property will be likely to suffer from unacceptable overbearing impacts to the rear garden… The proposal is therefore unacceptable in terms of impacts to neighbouring amenity”
23/02030/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 22 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[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, 2023–26. · 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.