Kashi Bhanji.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 77% across 735 decided planning applications, spanning 21 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×.
Bhanji assesses rear extension depth by naming specific neighbouring properties and their existing extension depths as the direct comparator, address by address, before concluding on impact to each in turn. He is explicit about a prior-approval or fall-back structure already under construction on the same site as a reason a further increment is acceptable.
· names each affected neighbouring property by number and states its own existing extension depth as the direct comparator before assessing impact
· treats an existing, already-under-construction prior approval on the same site as contextual justification for accepting further depth
· gives the precise metric excess over the Housing Design SPD guide depth (e.g. 'exceeds the ... Guidance depth by 0.7m') before concluding acceptability
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each individually affected neighbour named with its own existing extension depth as the comparator
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise metric by which a scheme exceeds the SPD guide depth
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an existing prior approval or under-construction extension on the same boundary supports accepting further depth
“Though the proposal exceeds the Housing Design 2019 SPD Guidance depth by 0.7 m, it is considered that the proposed is modest addition in depth to the existing single storey rear projection and several properties in the area have single storey rear extension of a similar depth, including neighbouring properties at No. 119, 126 and 130”
1271/23
“No. 119 is situated to the West of the applicant site and benefits from a rear extension 4.20 meters deep therefore the proposed extension would not extend over the shared boundary”
1271/23
Measured from 324 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 324 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 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 Redbridge 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 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 324 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.