Annie Utting.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Barking And Dagenham with an approval rate of 66% across 317 decided planning applications, spanning 19 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 Barking And Dagenham reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Utting's caseload is dominated by householder extensions, garage conversions and prior-approval rear extensions, and she is distinctive for explicitly checking a scheme's compliance against BOTH the Borough Wide DPD's own numeric standard (Policy BP5's 50 sqm/12m depth garden requirement) AND the London Plan/Housing SPG's separate standard in the same paragraph, flagging where a scheme meets one but not the other rather than treating the two regimes as interchangeable. On new dwellings sharing a garden with a host property, she quantifies the exact percentage reduction in the host's remaining garden space ('the proposal would result in the loss of approx. 50% of the rear garden space') as a standalone metric even where she ultimately finds the remainder acceptable.
· checks a scheme against BOTH the Borough Wide DPD's own external-amenity-space standard (Policy BP5) and the separate London Plan/Housing SPG standard in the same paragraph, flagging where they diverge rather than treating them as one combined test
· quantifies the exact percentage reduction in a host dwelling's remaining garden space caused by a new dwelling sharing that garden, as its own standalone metric distinct from whether the remainder meets the minimum standard
· on prior-approval/permitted-development rear extensions, works through the neighbour-by-neighbour amenity checklist (overshadowing/privacy/overbearing) methodically per named address before an overall verdict
· whether a new dwelling's private garden meets BOTH the Borough Wide DPD's Policy BP5 standard (50 sqm, 12m depth) and the separate London Plan/Housing SPG minimum
· the exact percentage reduction in a host dwelling's remaining garden space where a new dwelling would share that garden
· whether a prior-approval rear extension exceeds the 3.65m SPD guidance depth for the specific neighbour it would abut, with a distinct overshadowing/overbearing verdict for each named neighbouring address
“Although this would not meet the requirement within policy BP5 for rear gardens to have a minimum depth of 12 metres, it would meet the requirement of BP5 to have an area of 50 sqm and the requirements of the London Plan/Housing SPG”
22/00936/FULL
“The proposal would result in the loss of approx. 50% of the rear garden space of number 61, reducing the depth of the garden from approx. 21m to approx. 9m”
22/00936/FULL
Measured from 507 published Barking And Dagenham 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 507 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 19 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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 Barking And Dagenham planning register and published decision notices, 2022–26. · 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 Barking And Dagenham 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 507 published Barking And Dagenham 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.