Andrew Smith.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 80% across 83 decided planning applications, spanning 21 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 Redbridge reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Smith's reports in this corpus skew toward larger commercial and employment-land casework (a Strategic Industrial Location self-storage tower, a place of worship intensification, a hotel extension) and he sets out CIL and s106 obligation arithmetic in itemised form rather than a single total. On the one refusal read, he builds the objection through a street-by-street comparison of named neighbouring porch/canopy precedents and their planning references before concluding the current scheme exceeds them.
· itemises CIL, S106 and monitoring-fee arithmetic obligation-by-obligation (e.g. local labour, apprenticeships, training skills) rather than giving a single total
· names specific neighbouring precedent applications and their permitted dimensions before judging whether a proposal exceeds them
· sets out demographic/need evidence (e.g. worshipper shortfall figures, BAME population share) when assessing change-of-use community/faith proposals
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a broken-out obligation-by-obligation S106/CIL schedule rather than a single liability figure
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: named neighbouring precedent applications and their approved dimensions as the direct comparator for scale
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: quantified local need evidence (worshipper numbers, demographic shortfall) supporting a community/faith use change
“Attention is drawn to the numerous front porch extensions in the street nearby that exceed the frontage depth of the houses. At Nos 32 and 36 Lord Avenue are full width column edged front porch extensions which have been granted permission (refs 0437/09 in 2009 and 4231/16 in 2017) albeit they are over 120m away and not as deep”
1720/25
“There is a shortfall of 658 places for Arabic lessons and 483 worshippers locally”
0555/23
Measured from 29 published Redbridge 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 29 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 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 Redbridge 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 Redbridge 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 29 published Redbridge 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.