Catherine Zhandire.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 91% across 116 decided planning applications, spanning 19 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×.
Zhandire quotes a site's own previous refusal reason verbatim before explaining exactly which physical change in the resubmission is intended to overcome it, and references named local design guide provisions (Aldersbrook window design, conservation area schedules) alongside a run of GPDO roof-alteration certificates that name specific comparator dormers nearby.
· quotes a site's own previous refusal reason verbatim before explaining how a specific physical change in the resubmission overcomes it
· names specific neighbouring dormer examples by address to support a finding that a non-compliant set-in is consistent with the prevailing pattern of development
· sets out a unit-by-unit GIA-required-vs-provided table for new flats including aspect and bedroom dimensions
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact wording of a site's own previous refusal reason, addressed point by point in a resubmission
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: named neighbouring dormer examples cited by address to support a 'prevailing pattern' finding
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a full GIA-required-vs-provided table per unit including bedroom size and aspect
“there are 12 flat roof rear dormers along the side of the application site that do not have the prescribed set ins from the edges of the roof boundary (namely 19-25, 31; 37, 39, 41 and 45)”
0349/25
“The proposal was refused for the following reason: 1. The proposal because of the loss of the garage door, would result in the loss of symmetry of the buildings in Rosebury Square, as compared to the rest of this square of terrace of houses that were developed within the grounds of the listed hospital as a unified feature…The current scheme seeks to overcome this reason for refusal by retaining the garage door to the front elevation”
3270/23
Measured from 96 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 96 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 19 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 96 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.