Subash Jain.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 89% across 75 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×.
Jain's reports consistently use a distinctive possessive phrasing referring to 'its' depth, 'its' boundary and 'its' neighbours when describing the application site itself, and he works through GPDO gap-and-continuity questions (whether adjoining extensions with small gaps should be treated as one continuous enlargement) citing a named appeal decision on the point.
· uses a distinctive possessive construction ('its depth', 'its neighbour', 'its boundary') to describe the application site's own dimensions throughout
· addresses whether small gaps between adjoining extensions should be treated as one continuous enlargement, citing a named appeal decision on the same point
· compares a proposed extension's depth directly against a specific prior approval already granted at a named neighbouring address
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a gap between adjoining extension elements is material enough to avoid the whole being treated as one continuous enlargement, tested against appeal precedent
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific named neighbouring prior approval cited as the depth comparator
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: worked measurements described using the site's own dimensions ('its depth', 'its width') rather than a generic description
“Officers do not consider this gap to be of a material size and the proposed extension would therefore still effectively join to and project past a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. This view is shared by a comparatively recent appeal decision from 3rd January 2024 (APP/N0410/X/23/3317280)”
0854/25
“The proposed single storey outrigger extension would in line with the 6 meters deep extension approved under prior approval determination (2511/24 on 4th October 2024 at 102, Highwood Gardens”
1340/25
Measured from 56 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 56 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 56 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.