Sajjad Dar.
Active — last recorded decision Dec 2025
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 67% across 244 decided planning applications, spanning 25 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×.
Dar consistently names the specific neighbouring properties and their compass direction/orientation relative to the site, then works through outlook, daylight, privacy and overbearing per neighbour with a distinguishing note for which impact is negligible ('short periods of minimal impact') versus which is decisive. His refusals turn on an Article 4 Direction removing permitted development rights in the Woodgrange Conservation Area, stated as the specific mechanism rather than a general policy objection.
· names each affected neighbouring address and its direction from the site before assessing amenity impact on it individually
· distinguishes short-duration/minor impacts ('for short periods') from substantive ones rather than treating all daylight loss as equivalent
· cites the specific Article 4 Direction removing a named permitted-development class as the mechanism for a refusal, not a general conservation objection
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the named neighbouring address and its compass direction from the site before any amenity conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a daylight/sunlight loss is short-duration and minor versus substantive
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific Article 4 Direction and permitted-development class it removes, where that is the basis for refusal
“It is possible that there may be a loss of daylight for the rear facing rooms of 65 Vernon Road, to the south. However, this would be for short periods of minimal impact, therefore meaning this is not unacceptable”
21/02337/HH
“Permitted Development rights are removed as per the direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 in relation to the creation of the Woodgrange Conservation Area, London Borough of Newham”
20/00518/HH
Measured from 228 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 228 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 25 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–25.[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, 2021–25. · 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 228 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.