Development Intent
AtlasRedbridgeOfficersAngela Hudson
Planning Atlas›Redbridge›Angela Hudson
Case officer · Redbridge Planning

Angela Hudson.

Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026

A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 64% across 642 decided planning applications, spanning 23 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer642 decisions64% approvalSave
Redbridge · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
642
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%51%202071%202183%202267%202368%202460%202526%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate64% · 30th of 32
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports192 officer reports parsed
24%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
7%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
17%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
62%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Redbridge's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Redbridge reports. Attention, not stance.

Transport & parking
1.5× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.43× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
1.12× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.95× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
0.91× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

Assigned Angela Hudson on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“Redbridge has scored 38% on this measure in February 2019 for its performance in 2015 to 2018, making it the 3rd worst performing authority in England”

1081/20

“The Local Authority recognises that circumstances may sometimes warrant a flexible approach to the numerical standards for amenity space, which it believes are the reasonable minimum”

1081/20

Measured from 192 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 192 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

LP26and LP27). This will enable a large
147 times cited
D12
127 times cited
LP23Cycle and Car Parking Standards
96 times cited
LP29Amenity and Internal Space Standards
94 times cited
LP24Pollution). Encouraging a modal
91 times cited
LP22also sets out a number of public
84 times cited
T6
84 times cited
T5
83 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
63
54%
51
50%
44
74%
44
65%
39
60%
38
53%
38
69%
35
61%
35
61%
32
59%
31
61%
28
79%
27
67%
24
83%
18
56%
16
100%
16
73%
16
62%
12
75%
11
33%
9
86%
8
100%
1
100%
63
54%
51
50%
44
74%
Show all 23 rows
44
65%
39
60%
38
53%
38
69%
35
61%
35
61%
32
59%
31
61%
28
79%
27
67%
24
83%
18
56%
16
100%
16
73%
16
62%
12
75%
11
33%
9
86%
8
100%
1
100%

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
2805/24
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-04
0424/26
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2026-04-15
2805/24
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-04
0424/26
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2026-04-15
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 642 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Consulting Ltd
2. Ken Judge & Associates Ltd
3. SMART SKILLS LTD
4. Civils Consulting Ltd
At a glance
OfficerAngela Hudson
BoroughRedbridge
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications642 (2020–26)
Approval rate64%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [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. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 192 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.