Charlotte Gladstone.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 89% across 166 decided planning applications, spanning 16 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×.
Gladstone's certificate-of-lawfulness reports for HMO/flat conversions marshal a dense evidentiary record — dated tenancy agreements, statutory declarations, bank statement rent entries — cross-checked tenant by tenant, while her householder extension reports repeatedly invoke the prevailing pattern of similarly non-compliant dormers/extensions nearby as the basis for accepting a shortfall against the Design Guide.
· cross-checks dated tenancy agreements, statutory declarations and bank-statement rent payments tenant by tenant to establish continuous use
· names a specific run of neighbouring properties with non-compliant dormers/extensions as evidence the shortfall would not be out of keeping
· runs the near-identical GPDO roof volume/checklist template repeatedly across sequential applications for similar roof works
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a continuous, dated chain of tenancy agreements, declarations and rent payments covering the full qualifying period
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a named list of neighbouring properties sharing the same non-compliant dimension to support a 'prevailing pattern' finding
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the roof-volume arithmetic and GPDO checklist worked through for each roof-alteration certificate
“Signed statutory declaration from Mr Shah Nawaz confirming that he moved into Flat 2 (First Floor) on the 20th August 2021 and is still residing at this address. Dated 3rd June 2025”
2429/25
“The immediate surrounding development consists of rows of terraced houses within a residential neighbourhood, with many of them benefitting from rear dormers (that is nos. 119, 129, 141, 145 and 147 Blythswood Road)”
2427/25
Measured from 213 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 213 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 16 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[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 Redbridge planning register and published decision notices, 2025–26. · 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 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 213 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.