X Sergei Zotin.
Last recorded decision Aug 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 74% across 758 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×.
Zotin systematically re-tests resubmissions against the exact wording of a prior refusal reason, listing the specific design changes made (e.g. side walls now rendered, pitched roof added) as a checklist of whether each element of the earlier objection has been resolved. His refusals name specific neighbouring dormer/extension precedents and explain why the current scheme is not 'contained within the main roof slope' the way those precedents are.
· lists the specific design changes made since a prior refusal as a checklist matched against each element of that refusal's stated reasons
· names specific neighbouring dormer/extension precedents and distinguishes them from the current proposal on a specific technical point (e.g. containment within the roof slope)
· quotes the previous refusal's reason for refusal verbatim before assessing whether the current scheme overcomes it
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact wording of a prior refusal reason, checked point by point against the specific changes made in a resubmission
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: named neighbouring precedents distinguished on a specific technical point rather than treated as generally similar
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether submitted evidence for a certificate of lawfulness covers a continuous, unbroken period rather than isolated documents
“The adjacent properties (namely 19, 21, 34, 37, 44, 48 and 54 Elmhurst Drive and 36 Ashbourne Avenue) have existing roof dormers with a size, massing and subordination similar to the proposal, however these structures are contained within the main roof slope”
0360/20
“In comparison to the refused scheme, the currently proposed first floor rear extension is considerably reduced in its height and depth. As the further amendments to the current proposal were requested, a number of alterations to the scheme were sought, namely: - Side walls (facing Warren Road) of the proposed ground and first floor rear extensions are now finished in render”
0827/20
Measured from 29 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 29 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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, 2020–22. · 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 29 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.