Development Intent
AtlasRedbridgeOfficersX Deborah Ewenla
Planning Atlas›Redbridge›X Deborah Ewenla
Case officer · Redbridge Planning

X Deborah Ewenla.

Last recorded decision May 2024 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 85% across 445 decided planning applications, spanning 22 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer445 decisions85% approvalSave
Redbridge · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
445
Applications
2022–24
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%91%202285%202381%2024
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate85% · 7th of 32
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports

Not filled in yet — this needs at least 20 of X Deborah Ewenla's own officer reports parsed, and their reports haven't reached that threshold in the parsing run. It fills automatically as parsing progresses; nothing is estimated in its place.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most across their decisions — how often each appears, and whether refusals citing it survive appeal.

In development — policy citations are coded from officer reports, and that parsing hasn't run for Redbridge yet. Nothing is shown until it is real.

Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
48
82%
42
88%
39
87%
37
86%
29
74%
28
92%
23
82%
21
79%
19
89%
18
94%
16
88%
15
87%
15
73%
13
77%
12
83%
12
75%
12
100%
10
70%
10
100%
10
70%
8
88%
6
100%
48
82%
42
88%
39
87%
Show all 22 rows
37
86%
29
74%
28
92%
23
82%
21
79%
19
89%
18
94%
16
88%
15
87%
15
73%
13
77%
12
83%
12
75%
12
100%
10
70%
10
100%
10
70%
8
88%
6
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–24.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
1161/24
Householder
Approved
2024-06-06
1076/24
Householder
Approved
2024-06-04
1161/24
Householder
Approved
2024-06-06
1076/24
Householder
Approved
2024-06-04
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 445 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Civils Consulting Ltd
2. - SMART SKILLS LTD
3. Consulting Ltd
4. ARKS DESIGN STUDIO LIMITED
At a glance
OfficerX Deborah Ewenla
BoroughRedbridge
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications445 (2022–24)
Approval rate85%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Redbridge planning register and published decision notices, 2022–24. · methodology
  2. [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. [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. [4]Policy citations will be coded from officer reports against the adopted Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF — that parsing has not run for this borough yet.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.