Development Intent
AtlasRedbridgeOfficersX David Anderson
Planning Atlas›Redbridge›X David Anderson
Case officer · Redbridge Planning

X David Anderson.

Active — last recorded decision Feb 2026

A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 75% across 707 decided planning applications, spanning 22 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer707 decisions75% approvalSave
Redbridge · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
707
Applications
2021–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%69%202183%202279%202368%202468%202564%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate75% · 15th of 32
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports180 officer reports parsed
12%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
10%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
35%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
59%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Redbridge's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Redbridge reports. Attention, not stance.

Trees & landscape
1.44× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.35× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.32× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.25× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.12× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

Assigned X David Anderson on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“Bedrooms 1 and 2 have a floor area of 10.69 square metres and 10.35 square metres respectively, and so are only suitable for a single bedspace. Bedrooms 3, 4 and 5 have floors areas of 15.53 square metres, 23.60 square metres and 25.85 square metres respectively, and so are adequately sized to accommodate two bedspaces”

1087/22

“Furthermore, a two storey dwelling, albeit set away 10cm more from the shared side boundary than the current proposal, had been granted in this location”

1087/22

Measured from 180 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 180 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

LP26and LP27). This will enable a large
116 times cited
D3
113 times cited
D12
105 times cited
LP23Cycle and Car Parking Standards
63 times cited
T5
59 times cited
T6.1
55 times cited
LP29Amenity and Internal Space Standards
52 times cited
D6
51 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
55
83%
55
80%
40
74%
40
60%
37
69%
37
74%
35
79%
34
64%
32
88%
30
54%
30
83%
29
85%
27
84%
27
78%
27
78%
26
76%
25
84%
25
50%
25
92%
24
83%
19
56%
19
84%
55
83%
55
80%
40
74%
Show all 22 rows
40
60%
37
69%
37
74%
35
79%
34
64%
32
88%
30
54%
30
83%
29
85%
27
84%
27
78%
27
78%
26
76%
25
84%
25
50%
25
92%
24
83%
19
56%
19
84%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
3616/25
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-03-10
3497/25
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2026-03-06
3616/25
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-03-10
3497/25
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2026-03-06
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 707 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Consulting Ltd
2. DESIGN
3. - Ken Judge & Associates Ltd
4. Civils Consulting Ltd
At a glance
OfficerX David Anderson
BoroughRedbridge
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications707 (2021–26)
Approval rate75%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Redbridge planning register and published decision notices, 2021–26. · methodology
  2. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 180 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.