Development Intent
Planning AtlasRedbridgeLP38
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Redbridge · Local Plan · Policy

LP38 — Protecting Trees and Enhancing the Landscape.

How Redbridge actually applies LP38: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

LP38 is a published Redbridge planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Redbridge Local Plan (adopted)

Redbridge · LP38
Where LP38 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~38
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
263
times cited
in parsed decision notices
82%
appeal survival
18 dismissed · 4 allowed at appeal
23 of 27
officer reach
85% of officers recorded in this period
Monkhams
top hotspot ward
38 citations
What it means in practice

Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue LP38 case by case, classified from their decision reports — the classification pass hasn't run. Nothing is paraphrased in its place.

What the published record shows

LP38 appears most often in Monkhams, Wanstead Park, Wanstead Village. It appears across 23 of 27 officers recorded in this period. The map shows the pattern for the selected period.

Who cites it — case-officer spreadfrom parsed decision notices · click an officer
Who leans on this policy — and how often — is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Why it is cited — and what follows
86%
in approvals
226 citations
14%
in refusals
37 citations

This shows the decision reports in which LP38 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes.

Reason · role · consequence

Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why LP38 was used, whether it supported approval or refusal, and what changed as a result. No conclusion is shown until that classification has been checked.

Why this policy is cited, and what follows, is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Does it hold up? — appeal performance
82% survival
18 dismissed · 4 allowed22 PINS appeal decisions cite LP38

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite LP38. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing LP38 traced to their specific appeals — is still to come.

Related — follow the thread
Redbridge
Back to the borough policy record
Open →
Committee record
What reaches members, and what they do with it
Open →
Case officers
Redbridge's decision-makers
Open →
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published Redbridge decision notices (high-confidence parses, approvals and refusals), joined to the canonical application record. One citation = one decision citing the policy. See the policy overview for every policy cited.

Atlas intelligence summarises patterns and observations from published planning records. Past decisions do not indicate how any future application will be determined. Every application is assessed on its own merits, having regard to the proposal, site, evidence and policies applying at the time. This information is provided for general information only and is not planning, legal, financial or professional advice.