Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 78% across 575 decided planning applications, spanning 22 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 Enfield reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Bahrami-Jovein writes narrative checklist reports and is careful to separate the impact of a proposal on each affected neighbour individually rather than reaching a single blended amenity conclusion, explicitly stating where the 45-degree rule is breached for one neighbour but not another on the same scheme.
· assesses each affected neighbour separately within the same 'Impact Upon Neighbouring Amenity' section, reaching a different conclusion for each where the geometry differs
· cites specific appeal decisions (by reference number) as material considerations bearing on housing-mix arguments
· distinguishes the statutory basis of a Certificate of Lawfulness application precisely (e.g. 'section 192(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990') before assessing the substantive GPDO test
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a separate 45-degree line conclusion for each individually affected neighbour rather than one blended amenity judgement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a relevant appeal decision exists that bears materially on a disputed policy interpretation (e.g. definition of family accommodation)
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise statutory basis (s.192(1)(a) vs (b)) under which a Certificate of Lawfulness application is made
“The properties most impacted on by the development are no. 47 to the west and no. 53 to the east. It is observed that the neighbouring property at 47 retains an existing single-story rear extension and that there is a large gap between it and the subject property. The proposal would therefore have limited adverse impact on the amenity of the occupants of this property and 45 degree line would be retained.. However, the proposed single-storey rear extension would be built close to the common boundary with the adjoining ground floor flat at no. 53 to the east and would greatly breach the 45-degree rule”
21/03317/FUL
“In particular, adjoining properties number 183 and 187 benefit from outbuilding of approximately 6.95m and 6.8m. There are other examples that have been granted either by planning permission or certificate of lawfulness”
21/03499/HOU
Measured from 246 published Enfield 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 246 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 rows
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.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Enfield planning register and published decision notices, 2021–26. · 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 Enfield 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 246 published Enfield 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.