Sumeen Kaur Baweja.
Active — last recorded decision Dec 2025
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 87% across 370 decided planning applications, spanning 23 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×.
Baweja works through the Y/N checklist headings quickly and pairs each with a short, orientation-based justification (e.g. citing which way a property faces to explain why sunlight loss is minimal). She is notably willing to approve amendments that were reduced in scale after negotiation, and her CLP refusals cite the specific General Permitted Development Order class and criterion that is not met.
· explains amenity conclusions by reference to the orientation of the terrace (east/west/north/south facing) rather than distance alone
· notes explicitly when a scheme was amended/reduced during assessment and treats that reduction as the basis for acceptability
· cites the specific GPDO Schedule/Part/Class when refusing a Certificate of Lawful Development
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the compass orientation of affected neighbouring windows/gardens as the basis for a daylight/sunlight conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: evidence a scheme was amended/reduced in scale during assessment before recommending approval
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact GPDO Schedule/Part/Class criterion not met, for a CLP refusal
“Officers note the western orientation of the properties, meaning the loss of sunlight will be minimal to no.19 Cranberry Lane”
22/01226/HH
“under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class G Criteria of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), the alteration of a chimney on a dwellinghouse is permitted”
22/02222/CLP
Measured from 365 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 365 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–25.[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, 2022–25. · 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 365 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.