Planning Inspector · PINS
R J Redford MTCP.
A planning inspector deciding appeals across London. Has decided 43 appeals from 13 boroughs, allowing 16% of appeals — below the London average of 26%. Where those appeals come from, and how they fell, is below.
Planning Inspector · PINS43 appeals16% allowed13 boroughs
Where appeals come from — by borough · tap to focus
FewerMore appeals
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →43
Appeals decided
7 allowed · 36 dismissed
—
Avg inquiry
awaits decision-notice ingestion
—
Costs awarded
not yet traced per inspector
Allowed rate over time — harsher or more lenient
Per-year allowed rates for this inspector aren't computed yet — the trend publishes when the dated PINS decision history is fully ingested. No trend is shown until it's real.
What they decide — by scheme type
The scheme-type mix hasn't been traced for this inspector yet — it publishes from the PINS development-type record where available.
Grounds that carry appeals — what this inspector upholds[1]
The policy grounds this inspector leans on most when deciding appeals — how often each appears, and how often an appeal citing it is allowed.
Policy grounds are coded from each decision letter — this table publishes when decision-notice ingestion lands. The raw policy references already sit on each appeal in the record below.
Backs the officer — case by case
Appeals where the committee refused against its own officer's recommendation — and whether this inspector then sided with the officer (allowing) or the committee (dismissing).
Matching this inspector's appeals to committee-vs-officer decisions isn't traced yet — it publishes with decision-notice ingestion. The London-wide pattern is already live in Committee Watch.
Appeals by borough
Borough
Appeals
Allowed rate
Show all 13 rows
Where this inspector's appeals come from.[1] Click the map above to explore spatially, or a row to open the borough's appeals.
Costs awarded — by council
Costs decisions aren't yet traced to individual inspectors — the council-by-council costs table publishes when the PINS costs letters are ingested against this inspector's cases.
Recent appeals
Appeal ref
Borough
Outcome
Policies cited
Decided
3377063
Wandsworth
Dismissed
—
2026-08-07
3275457
Harrow
Dismissed
M5450, HA7, D3, CS1
2026-03-29
3276642
Harrow
Dismissed
M5450, HA1, D6, SD6
2026-03-29
3279738
Barking and Dagenham
Dismissed
Z5060, IG11, CM1, CM2
2026-03-29
3377063
Wandsworth
Dismissed
—
2026-08-07
3275457
Harrow
Dismissed
M5450, HA7, D3, CS1
2026-03-29
3276642
Harrow
Dismissed
M5450, HA1, D6, SD6
2026-03-29
Show all 4 rows
3279738
Barking and Dagenham
Dismissed
Z5060, IG11, CM1, CM2
2026-03-29
Full appeal history locked
Subscribe to see all 43 appeals →Agents at appeal
Which agents bring the most appeals before this inspector — and how often they win — publishes when the appeal case files are joined to the agent record. Pairing patterns, not endorsements.
At a glance
InspectorR J Redford MTCP
BodyPINS
Appeals decided43
Allowed rate16%
London allowed avg26%
Boroughs13
Who decides here
Related investigations
Committee Watch — when members override their officers →
Where elected members override their planning officers — and how often the override is later overturned at appeal.
Refusal Hotspots — where it's hard →
The wards and boroughs where applications die — and the ones that wave almost everything through.
Sources & method
- [1]Appeals decided, allowed rate and the borough breakdown — Planning Inspectorate (PINS) published appeal decisions by this inspector across London. · PINS appeals casework
- [2]London-wide allowed-rate baseline — the same PINS appeal record aggregated across all 33 boroughs. · the Inspectorate — London
- [3]Scheme-type mix — PINS development-type classification of this inspector’s England-wide casework, where traced. · methodology
“Allowed” = the appeal succeeded, overruling the council. Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.