Ruby Stagles.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Barking And Dagenham with an approval rate of 68% across 343 decided planning applications, spanning 19 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×.
Stagles' caseload is heavily weighted towards Certificate of Lawfulness (CLUP/CLUE) and prior-approval applications rather than full planning permission, and she is the borough's most appeal-decision-literate officer, citing specific named Planning Inspectorate appeal references (by APP/ reference number) to resolve ambiguous GPDO wording — for instance using an inspector's finding that removing part of a pitched roof and replacing it with a flat roof constitutes 'an alteration to the roof' under Class B to resolve how an existing side extension's roof should be treated in a volume calculation. She works through GPDO Schedule 2 Class letters and sub-paragraph references (Class A.1(d), B.2(b)) methodically, cross-referencing volume/depth arithmetic against the precise cubic-metre and percentage-of-curtilage thresholds.
· cites specific named Planning Inspectorate appeal decisions (by APP/ reference) to resolve ambiguous GPDO Schedule 2 wording, rather than applying her own interpretation of the Order's text alone
· walks through GPDO Class letters and sub-paragraph references (Class A.1(d), Class B.2(b), Class E.1(e)(ii)) explicitly by their statutory citation, not just by describing the rule in prose
· on CLUP applications, checks a proposed outbuilding's use claim (e.g. 'ancillary or related to the use of the property as a dwelling') against physical evidence such as bathroom fittings or side-passage access before accepting the applicant's stated use
· whether a directly relevant Planning Inspectorate appeal decision exists that resolves how a specific GPDO Schedule 2 provision should be interpreted for the case at hand
· the combined roof-extension volume (new plus any existing dormer/hip-to-gable work) measured against the 40 cubic-metre (terraced) or 50 cubic-metre (detached/semi) GPDO threshold
· whether an outbuilding's claimed ancillary use to the dwelling is supported by physical evidence (bathroom, kitchenette, side-passage access) rather than the application form's stated use alone
“In my view, the removal of part of the pitched roof of the existing extension and its replacement with a flat roof is an alteration to the roof”
23/01070/CLUP
“the resulting roof space would not exceed the content of the original roof space by more than 50 cubic metres”
23/01070/CLUP
Measured from 411 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 411 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 19 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[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, 2023–26. · 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 411 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.