Development Intent
AtlasRedbridgeOfficersBethany Mccay
Planning Atlas›Redbridge›Bethany McCay
Case officer · Redbridge Planning

Bethany McCay.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 72% across 1,060 decided planning applications, spanning 22 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer1,060 decisions72% 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 →
1,060
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%61%202076%202179%202275%202369%202476%202575%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate72% · 23rd 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 reports265 officer reports parsed
12%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
4%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
10%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
72%
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.

Privacy & overlooking
1.89× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.41× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.34× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.26× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.13× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

McCay measures proposed extensions directly against the Housing Design SPD's stated maximum depth/width figures and, on refusal, quantifies exactly how far a scheme exceeds them (e.g. width against half the property's width) before describing the resulting design harm in evaluative terms such as bulky and dominating. She treats CIL, SAC and refuse conditions as routine closing matters rather than substantive issues.

Observable habits

· states the precise numerical excess over the Housing Design SPD's recommended depth or width (e.g. 'x% more than half the width') before describing the design harm

· distinguishes single-aspect rooms with limited outlook as a specific quality-of-accommodation failure rather than a general internal space shortfall

· treats CIL/SAC payment calculations as a routine closing item stated in figures rather than discussed at length

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the numeric extent to which a proposal exceeds the SPD's stated maximum depth or width, not just a finding of non-compliance

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a habitable room's only windows give limited outlook, treated as a specific harm rather than folded into a general light/outlook conclusion

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific CIL rate per square metre and resulting liability figure for the borough and Mayoral charge

Assigned Bethany McCay 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

“The proposed extension at 5.73m in width would be greater than half the width of the property at 10.0m and would be significantly larger than the first-floor section of the property, making it appear significantly larger than half width and creating a bulky and dominating addition to the rear of the property”

1016/20

“the living area of the rear flat is served by two small windows and access door on the rear elevation, given the overall size of this space and the limited outlook provided by these fenestrations it is unlikely this room would receive adequate outlook or light, harmful to the amenity of future occupiers”

0931/20

Measured from 265 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 265 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

LP26and LP27). This will enable a large
167 times cited
D3
128 times cited
D12
127 times cited
LP30Household Extensions
114 times cited
LP23Cycle and Car Parking Standards
56 times cited
LP29Amenity and Internal Space Standards
49 times cited
T5
45 times cited
T6
44 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
94
70%
80
82%
76
70%
64
85%
61
76%
61
82%
57
76%
57
71%
48
67%
48
69%
47
78%
44
67%
37
59%
35
63%
35
71%
34
71%
33
70%
31
59%
26
68%
26
52%
23
67%
20
75%
94
70%
80
82%
76
70%
Show all 22 rows
64
85%
61
76%
61
82%
57
76%
57
71%
48
67%
48
69%
47
78%
44
67%
37
59%
35
63%
35
71%
34
71%
33
70%
31
59%
26
68%
26
52%
23
67%
20
75%

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
0237/26
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-04
0811/26
Householder
Approved
2026-05-29
0237/26
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-04
0811/26
Householder
Approved
2026-05-29
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 1,060 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. ZAAVIA DESIGN LTD
2. Ken Judge & Associates Ltd
3. SMART SKILLS LTD
4. Consulting Ltd
At a glance
OfficerBethany McCay
BoroughRedbridge
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications1,060 (2020–26)
Approval rate72%
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 265 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.