X Thomas Russell.
Last recorded decision Apr 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 73% across 467 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×.
Russell recites the Housing Design SPD's specific numeric standards for the relevant extension type (side, rear, dormer) as a preamble before applying them to the proposal at hand, and on refusal quotes the specific number by which the scheme falls short of each threshold in turn.
· states the Housing Design SPD's specific numeric standard for the relevant extension type as a preamble before applying it to the facts of the case
· on refusal, states each threshold breached in turn along with the specific figure that fails to comply
· distinguishes 'front and rear dormers' guidance from 'side extension' guidance explicitly before assessing a mixed scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific Housing Design SPD numeric standard for the relevant extension type stated before it is applied
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each individual threshold breach quantified by its own figure rather than a general non-compliance finding
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a condition on a previous permission has removed permitted development rights before assessing a certificate of lawfulness
“the Council's adopted Housing Design SPD (2019) states that, in regard to two-storey side extensions, the width of the proposed development should be no more than half the width of the host property. In addition, two-storey side extensions should be appropriately set-down 0.5 metres from the main ridge of the property, and set-back 0.5 metres from the front elevation”
0893/20
“Condition 3 of application 2343/12 states the following: No extensions, including those permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Statutory Instrument revoking, re-enacting or amending that Order), shall be carried out on the property the subject of this permission without the grant of further specific permission from the Local Planning Authority. Permitted Development rights for the application site (2, Becket Close) have therefore been removed”
1590/20
Measured from 44 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 44 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 44 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.