Esther Rubinsohn.
Active — last recorded decision Jan 2026
A case officer at Barking And Dagenham with an approval rate of 61% across 457 decided planning applications, spanning 20 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 Barking And Dagenham reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Rubinsohn's caseload is dominated by householder extensions on Becontree Estate banjo cul-de-sacs and terraced rows, and she is unusually precise about CUMULATIVE massing — repeatedly calculating a proposal's depth as a combined figure against an EXISTING extension already on the property, rather than assessing the new element in isolation ('the existing rear extension has a depth of 3.5 metres and this application proposes for another 3 metre single storey rear extension...producing a combined extension of 6.5 metres from the original wall'). She is also attentive to the specific street-level pattern of a road — counting how many other houses on the same cul-de-sac or terrace row already have a similar extension type — before judging whether a proposal would be 'disproportionally large in comparison to the adjacent houses'.
· calculates a proposal's CUMULATIVE depth by adding it to any existing extension already on the property, rather than assessing only the new element in isolation, when judging disproportionality against the original dwelling
· counts how many other properties on the same specific road/cul-de-sac already have a comparable extension type before judging whether a scheme would appear disproportionate against that street's established pattern
· on minor SPD threshold breaches (e.g. 0.04m over the 3.65m depth guidance), explicitly quantifies the margin of breach rather than treating any breach as automatically unacceptable
· the combined/cumulative depth of a proposed extension plus any existing extension already built on the property, measured from the original rear wall
· how many comparable extensions already exist on the same cul-de-sac or terrace row, as the basis for a character-fit judgement
· the precise numeric margin by which a proposal exceeds or falls within the SPD's depth/eaves-height guidance
“The existing rear extension has a depth of 3.5 metres and this application proposes for another 3 metre single storey rear extension to be added onto the back of this therefore producing a combined extension of 6.5 metres from the original wall of the dwellinghouse”
22/01078/HSE
“The depth of the proposed extension does exceed 3.65 metres however this is only by 0.04 metres therefore is very minimal”
22/01157/HSE
Measured from 509 published Barking And Dagenham 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 509 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 20 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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 Barking And Dagenham planning register and published decision notices, 2022–26. · 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 Barking And Dagenham 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 509 published Barking And Dagenham 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.