Development Intent
AtlasRedbridgeOfficersAnna Van Overbeke
Planning Atlas›Redbridge›Anna van Overbeke
Case officer · Redbridge Planning

Anna van Overbeke.

Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026

A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 88% across 145 decided planning applications, spanning 22 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer145 decisions88% 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 →
145
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%100%2021100%202271%202389%202493%202579%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate88% · 5th 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 reports125 officer reports parsed
8%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
46%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
7%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
67%
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.

Energy & sustainability
2.36× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
1.58× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.42× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.38× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.11× borough avg

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

Assigned Anna van Overbeke 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

“Hip to gable volume: = (W x H x D)/6 = (8.30m x 3.13m x 4.11.m)/6 = (106.77m3)/6 = 17.79m3 B. Dormer volume: = (W x H x D)/2 = (6.56m x 2.6m x 3.85m)/2 = (65.66)/2 = 32.83m3 Total volume: A + B = 17.79m3 + 32.83m3 = 50.62m3”

0467/24

“Volume of Proposed Dormer = (h x d x w )/2 = (2.52m x 3.66m x 8.25m)/2 = 76.091m3/2 = 38.05m3”

0132/25

Measured from 125 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 125 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

LP26and LP27). This will enable a large
57 times cited
D12
53 times cited
LP23Cycle and Car Parking Standards
47 times cited
LP33Heritage
43 times cited
LP29Amenity and Internal Space Standards
41 times cited
LP30Household Extensions
39 times cited
LP38Protecting Trees and Enhancing the Landscape
38 times cited
D3
23 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
16
93%
15
79%
12
75%
12
100%
12
100%
10
100%
10
70%
9
89%
8
100%
8
71%
5
100%
5
100%
5
100%
4
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
50%
2
50%
1
0%
1
100%
1
–
1
100%
16
93%
15
79%
12
75%
Show all 22 rows
12
100%
12
100%
10
100%
10
70%
9
89%
8
100%
8
71%
5
100%
5
100%
5
100%
4
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
50%
2
50%
1
0%
1
100%
1
–
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
3582/25
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2026-06-04
3524/25
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-03
3582/25
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2026-06-04
3524/25
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-03
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 145 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Consulting Ltd
2. SMART SKILLS LTD
3. David L Walker Limited
4. PPM Planning Limited
At a glance
OfficerAnna van Overbeke
BoroughRedbridge
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications145 (2020–26)
Approval rate88%
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 125 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.