Development Intent
AtlasRedbridgeOfficersX Natalie Price
Planning Atlas›Redbridge›X Natalie Price
Case officer · Redbridge Planning

X Natalie Price.

Last recorded decision Oct 2022 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Redbridge with an approval rate of 73% across 161 decided planning applications, spanning 22 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer161 decisions73% 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 →
161
Applications
2021–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%68%202196%2022
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate73% · 19th 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 reports

Not filled in yet — this needs at least 20 of X Natalie Price's own officer reports parsed, and their reports haven't reached that threshold in the parsing run. It fills automatically as parsing progresses; nothing is estimated in its place.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies cited most on decision notices for applications X Natalie Price decided — 4 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

LP26and LP27). This will enable a largeRedbridge plan
4 times cited
D12London Plan
1 times cited
LP32Sustainable Design and ConstructionRedbridge plan
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
17
81%
14
85%
11
70%
10
56%
9
67%
8
75%
8
63%
8
75%
7
67%
7
100%
7
83%
7
71%
7
71%
6
17%
6
80%
6
67%
5
40%
4
100%
4
75%
3
100%
3
67%
3
100%
17
81%
14
85%
11
70%
Show all 22 rows
10
56%
9
67%
8
75%
8
63%
8
75%
7
67%
7
100%
7
83%
7
71%
7
71%
6
17%
6
80%
6
67%
5
40%
4
100%
4
75%
3
100%
3
67%
3
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–22.[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
2927/22
Householder
Approved
2022-11-04
2992/22
Householder
Approved
2022-11-04
2927/22
Householder
Approved
2022-11-04
2992/22
Householder
Approved
2022-11-04
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 161 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Ken Judge & Associates Ltd
2. Rolfe Judd Planning
3. SMART SKILLS LTD
4. Ken Neil Building Design
At a glance
OfficerX Natalie Price
BoroughRedbridge
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications161 (2021–22)
Approval rate73%
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, 2021–22. · 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]Policy citations will be coded from officer reports against the adopted Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF — that parsing has not run for this borough yet.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.