Eve Mackintosh.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 92% across 503 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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 Islington reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Mackintosh quotes UDG or conservation area guidance passages verbatim before applying them to the facts, and her one refusal in this corpus is built specifically on the absence of a plan detail (obscure glazing) rather than a general objection to windows in principle. She writes explicitly about what would prejudice a neighbouring site's own future development potential, not just current occupiers' amenity.
· quotes the relevant UDG or Conservation Area Design Guideline paragraph in full before applying it to the specific proposal
· identifies a missing plan detail (e.g. unconfirmed obscure glazing) as the specific basis for a refusal rather than a general design objection
· considers impact on a neighbouring site's own future development potential as a distinct ground, not folded into amenity
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: confirmation on the submitted plans (not just the application narrative) that any privacy-sensitive glazing is obscure
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether new openings on or near a boundary wall would restrict the adjoining site's own future development
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: how a garden structure's setback and footprint measure against the specific UDG paragraph thresholds for garden buildings
“the three additional windows are not shown on the submitted plans to be of obscurely glazed finish. Therefore by its design choice could have significant impacts to the neighbouring amenity”
P2023/2099/FUL
“As the proposal would be on a boundary wall, the proposed would unduly prejudice the development to the property to the west (no. 116) of the application side.”
P2023/2099/FUL
Measured from 74 published Islington 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 74 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 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 Islington 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 Islington 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 74 published Islington 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.