Louis Moore.
Active — last recorded decision Jan 2026
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 81% across 28 decided planning applications, spanning 15 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×.
Moore's reports give explicit weight to a previous appeal Inspector's own reasoning when reassessing a resubmitted scheme, quoting the Inspector's specific findings on which aspects were and were not acceptable, and his CLP refusals identify a precise plan-versus-reality discrepancy (e.g. an outrigger's true width) as the basis for withholding a certificate.
· quotes a Planning Inspectorate appeal decision's own specific findings (which policies were/weren't met) when reassessing a resubmitted scheme
· identifies a precise measurable discrepancy between the submitted plans and the true dimensions of the existing building as the basis for a CLP refusal
· separates the acceptability of housing principle from a scheme's continuing failure on a single named issue (e.g. bin storage clarity)
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an appeal Inspector's own specific findings on which policies were and weren't met, quoted directly
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a precise measurable discrepancy between submitted plans and the building's true dimensions
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a single outstanding technical issue (e.g. bin storage) is the sole reason a scheme remains unacceptable
“I conclude that the proposal would accord with LP6.9 relating to the promotion of cycling in London, with NLP policy INF2 which requires the inclusion of measures to facilitate cycling and with its SP8 which encourages sustainable transport”
20/02851/FUL
“It would appear in reality the outrigger interjects the main roof higher than what is depicted in the submitted drawings. Furthermore, the outrigger appears to be wider (approximately 0.3 metres) in reality”
20/02225/CLP
Measured from 21 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 21 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 15 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 21 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.