Development Intent
AtlasRedbridgeOfficersX Ewan Campbell
Planning Atlas›Redbridge›X Ewan Campbell
Case officer · Redbridge Planning

X Ewan Campbell.

Last recorded decision May 2021 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 64% across 324 decided planning applications, spanning 22 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer324 decisions64% 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 →
324
Applications
2020–21
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%65%202060%2021
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate64% · 29th 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 reports37 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
26%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
16%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
88%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Redbridge's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Redbridge reports. Attention, not stance.

Bulk & massing
1.42× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.03× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.92× borough avg
Character & heritage
0.8× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
0.68× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

Assigned X Ewan Campbell on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“As the neighbours at no. 226 do not benefit from a rear extension and the terraced nature of the properties, the proposal would mean that there would be a 6.0m extension at 3.2m along a tightly spaced boundary…Seeing as the gardens are approximately 17.0m this would mean a third of the garden boundary is covered by the extension”

0476/20

“This fails to preserve the character of the area as there are no distinct examples of flat roof extensions to the rear of the first floor of properties”

0476/20

Measured from 37 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 37 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

LP26and LP27). This will enable a large
20 times cited
LP30Household Extensions
13 times cited
LP10states, the Council will seek to retain
3 times cited
LP23Cycle and Car Parking Standards
3 times cited
LP29Amenity and Internal Space Standards
3 times cited
LP5should be fully considered. The
3 times cited
LP33Heritage
3 times cited
LP14Stimulating Business and the Local Economy
3 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
25
82%
24
57%
21
70%
20
56%
19
63%
19
74%
19
84%
16
53%
15
57%
15
57%
14
83%
14
43%
13
77%
12
50%
12
83%
11
40%
11
73%
10
80%
10
30%
8
38%
7
57%
3
100%
25
82%
24
57%
21
70%
Show all 22 rows
20
56%
19
63%
19
74%
19
84%
16
53%
15
57%
15
57%
14
83%
14
43%
13
77%
12
50%
12
83%
11
40%
11
73%
10
80%
10
30%
8
38%
7
57%
3
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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
3938/20
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2021-06-11
1392/21
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2021-06-11
3938/20
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2021-06-11
1392/21
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2021-06-11
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 324 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. ZAAVIA DESIGN LTD
2. Ken Judge & Associates Ltd
3. Stadia Architectural Design
4. ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
At a glance
OfficerX Ewan Campbell
BoroughRedbridge
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications324 (2020–21)
Approval rate64%
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, 2020–21. · 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]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 37 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.