Sakina Mohamed.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 83% across 321 decided planning applications, spanning 14 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×.
Mohamed's largest corpus in this set spans routine extensions to a highways refusal built substantially on a quoted planning-appeal Inspector's paragraph, reproducing the Inspector's own numbered findings before adopting them as the Council's basis for refusal. She gives precise dormer set-in figures (eaves, ridge, sides) individually for design and conservation-area cases alike.
· quotes an Inspector's appeal decision by numbered paragraph verbatim before adopting its findings as the basis for the current refusal
· states dormer set-in distances from eaves, ridge and both sides individually rather than as a single combined figure
· treats an existing, unimplemented Housing Design SPD depth guide figure as the explicit benchmark stated before any site-specific departure is discussed
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an appeal Inspector's own numbered paragraph quoted to support the current recommendation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: dormer set-in distances stated individually for eaves, ridge and each side rather than combined
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a Tree Officer's specific comment on protection measures cited before a non-dischargeable condition is proposed
“6. As proposed, the extended dropped kerb would increase the distance over which vehicles could come into conflict with pedestrians. This is of particular concern as the nearby commercial and day nursery uses are likely to generate high numbers of pedestrian and vehicle movements. In my judgement the proposal would detrimentally impact pedestrian safety”
2532/24
“Proposed elevations indicate the rear dormer will be set in from the sides by 1 metre and set up from the eaves by 0.8 metres and set down from the ridge of the main roof by 0.5 metres”
2460/24
Measured from 347 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 347 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–26.[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, 2024–26. · 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 347 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.