Jordan Tai.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 66% across 187 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×.
Tai's HMO reports scrutinise communal living/dining floorspace room by room against the SPD's per-person square-metre thresholds, and where a scheme narrowly meets a combined total but lacks the required separate, window-served living space he treats that specific configuration as demonstrably detrimental and grounds for refusal rather than the aggregate area shortfall.
· checks HMO communal living/dining space against the specific per-person square-metre requirement for the stated occupancy number
· identifies when a communal room lacks its own external window as a specific defect distinct from a general floorspace shortfall
· cites a named comparator HMO application and its communal-space figure as the benchmark for an adequate scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: communal living/dining floorspace checked against the specific per-person square-metre requirement, not just a combined total
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a communal room has its own external window rather than being an internal, windowless space
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an HMO Management Plan addresses each specific numbered criterion in the SPD (anti-social behaviour, pests, refuse, garden management)
“The number and quality for the communal rooms have not been achieved, this would be demonstrably detrimental to the living conditions and amenity of future occupants who would be living in nothing more than self-contained single bedrooms. As such, this application should be refused on this basis”
0793/25
“the current arrangement positions the living area between the rear kitchen and the front bedroom, with no external window serving this space. As a result, it would lack natural light and meaningful outlook”
0793/25
Measured from 145 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 145 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 19 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[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, 2025–26. · 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 145 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.