Terrence Leung.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 73% across 524 decided planning applications, spanning 22 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×.
Leung's is the largest corpus reviewed here and his reports work through each dimension (width, depth, eaves height, ridge height) against the specific numbered Housing Design SPD section it engages, flagging exactly which section is met and which is exceeded before an on-balance conclusion. He is explicit when submitted plans are internally inconsistent, declining to determine which drawing should be relied upon.
· checks each dimension against the specific numbered Housing Design SPD section (e.g. 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6) individually rather than a general compliance statement
· flags when submitted plans are internally inconsistent and states the Council cannot determine which drawing is the final intended design
· draws the 45-degree line from the corner of a proposed extension to the centre of the nearest habitable window as the specific operative test for amenity impact
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each dimension checked against its own specific numbered SPD section rather than a blended design conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether submitted plans are internally consistent with each other before a design assessment is reached
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the 45-degree line drawn precisely to the centre of the nearest habitable room window, not just a general proximity assessment
“Owing to the inconsistent plans, nevertheless, the Council is unable to determine which drawing(s) is/are the final intended design on which the decision should be based”
3281/24
“As the 45-degree line drawn from the corner of the proposed part first-floor extension does not touch the centre of the nearest habitable room window at No. 26, it is considered that no unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of outlook, daylight/sunlight or overbearing nature will be caused”
2785/24
Measured from 520 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 520 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 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 520 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.