Thomas Smith-Keary.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 70% across 600 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×.
Smith-Keary's larger-scheme reports lead with the Housing Delivery Test figures and 'tilted balance' framing before design assessment, and his flat-conversion refusals identify a specific under-sized unit by exact square-metreage shortfall against the national space standard, distinguishing rooms mislabelled as studios from their true bedroom classification.
· opens larger residential scheme assessments with the Housing Delivery Test percentage and 'tilted balance'/presumption-in-favour framing
· corrects a unit's stated typology (e.g. a 'studio' with a separate bedroom reclassified as a 1-bed) before checking it against the correct space standard
· identifies the precise square-metre shortfall against the national space standard for each under-sized flat rather than a general accommodation-quality finding
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the current Housing Delivery Test percentage and tilted-balance consequence stated before scheme-specific assessment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a unit's stated bedroom/studio typology is accurate before applying the relevant space standard
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise square-metre shortfall against the national described space standard for each affected unit
“Please note that the Design and Access Statement refers to flats 1 and 2 as studio flats, this is incorrect as they both have bedrooms separate from the main habitable living room/kitchen”
1258/20
“the flat would still be 2 square metres below the minimum requirement of 37 square metres and would still be unacceptable; amending the floor area of the bedroom would not resolve the larger issue”
1258/20
Measured from 233 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 233 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 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 233 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.