Matt Redman.
Last recorded decision Jul 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 76% across 348 decided planning applications, spanning 28 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 Ealing reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Redman's reports show a distinctive willingness to test policy applicability narrowly before applying it — checking whether a cited policy (e.g. loss-of-employment-space Policy 4A) actually covers the use class at issue and explicitly concluding it does NOT apply, rather than citing it as a generic backdrop. He closes refusal reports with an explicit "Summary" paragraph that separately restates which specific elements were acceptable and which were not, before the final recommendation line.
· tests whether a cited policy's scope (e.g. which use class it covers) actually applies to the facts of the case, explicitly stating when a commonly-cited policy does NOT apply
· closes refusal reports with a distinct "Summary" paragraph that separately itemises which specific elements of the scheme were acceptable and which were not, before the final recommendation line
· explains a proposal's context sympathetically (e.g. noting COVID-era circumstances) before assessing its technical merits, without letting that context override the substantive conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a commonly-cited policy's use-class scope actually covers the facts of this specific case, rather than assuming it applies by default
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a distinct closing Summary paragraph that separately states which elements of a scheme are acceptable and which are not, ahead of the final recommendation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the site sits within a designated shopping frontage before applying retail-frontage-loss policy
“Planning Policy 4A relates to the loss of commercial space but this is only within a B use class. This policy would therefore not be applicable”
202476FUL
“There are minimal details to show why the existing commercial premises is not viable but the principle of the proposed change of use to residential would not cause harm and would not sustain a reason for refusal. The proposed residential units are however significantly undersized and do not have any amenity space”
202476FUL
Measured from 98 published Ealing 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 98 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 28 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[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 Ealing planning register and published decision notices, 2020–23. · 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 Ealing 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 98 published Ealing 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.