Bethany Robins.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Barking And Dagenham with an approval rate of 66% across 486 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 Barking And Dagenham reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Robins' caseload is dominated by householder extensions and loft conversions within the Becontree Estate — a non-designated heritage asset whose symmetrical terraced-row form she treats as a structural constraint on every scheme, not just conservation-area cases. Her reasoning is unusually granular about the terrace's existing pattern of extension: she checks whether EACH adjoining neighbour already has a comparable extension before judging loss of daylight/outlook/overbearing, and where only one neighbour of a pair has an existing rear extension she is more willing to find 'potential for the proposal to generate material loss of daylight and outlook' to the un-extended one specifically, even when the extension itself complies with the SPD depth guidance. She is comfortable naming a scheme's design as 'a bulky and discordant feature that does not fit' the host dwelling even where she ultimately finds neighbouring-amenity impacts acceptable, treating design-fit and amenity harm as separate tests rather than one combined verdict.
· checks whether EACH adjoining neighbour already has an existing comparable extension before judging daylight/outlook/overbearing impact on that specific neighbour, rather than applying one amenity verdict to the whole terrace
· separates 'does this fit the Becontree Estate's symmetrical terraced-row character' from 'does this harm neighbouring amenity' as two distinct tests, sometimes finding a scheme bulky/discordant on design while still finding amenity impacts acceptable
· treats a terrace's existing gap between neighbouring properties (e.g. the gap above garages between end-of-terrace houses) as a 'recurring feature' worth preserving in its own right, separate from any amenity calculation
· whether each affected neighbour already has an existing rear/side extension of comparable scale, which she treats as reducing the marginal amenity harm of a new proposal
· whether the proposed depth/height complies with the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD's numeric thresholds (3.65m depth, 45-degree angle rule)
· whether the design would preserve or close up a 'recurring feature' gap between terraced properties that contributes to the estate's sense of openness and symmetry
“Whilst it is noted that the adjoining property no.5 Ilchester Road has a 6 metre deep rear extension, approved under planning application no.18/00798/PRIOR6, the adjoining property no.1 Ilchester Road does not host a rear extension therefore, there is potential for the proposal to generate material loss of daylight and outlook to neighbouring properties”
21/00828/HSE
“The existing gap above the garages between this property and no.18 Buller Road is a recurring feature along the road that creates a sense of separation between the rows of terraces”
21/00866/HSE
Measured from 638 published Barking And Dagenham 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 638 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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 Barking And Dagenham planning register and published decision notices, 2021–26. · 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 Barking And Dagenham 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 638 published Barking And Dagenham 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.