Ida Faal.
Active — last recorded decision Mar 2026
A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 71% across 130 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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×.
Faal's refusals turn on a dormer or extension failing to remain subordinate in scale to the host roof/building, and she is explicit about set-in distances (from ridge, eaves, boundary) as the operative measurements determining subordination, comparing them directly against Housing Design SPD or conservation area guide figures. Her approvals lean on named comparator extensions on the same road at a similar depth.
· states the specific set-in distances from ridge, eaves and side boundary and compares them directly against the guide's numeric thresholds to determine subordination
· names comparator properties on the same road with extensions/dormers of similar depth or design to support acceptability
· treats a scheme's failure to be 'subordinate in size and scale' as the specific basis for refusal rather than a general design objection
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific set-in distances from ridge, eaves and side boundary compared against the guide's numeric thresholds
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: named comparator properties on the same road at a similar extension depth
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a roof extension remains subordinate in scale to the existing roof, stated as the specific ground for acceptance or refusal
“The rear dormer extension to the existing dormer at main roof level with minimal set ins would dominate this roof profile. In addition, the rear dormer would cover more than half the length of the ground floor rear extension and the host building”
1275/25
“there are single storey rear extensions of a similar scale within the surrounding area”
1327/25
Measured from 112 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 112 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 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 112 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.