Harini Boteju.
Last recorded decision Feb 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 91% across 251 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×.
Boteju's amenity sections are structured as a named list of affected neighbours, each given its own 'Impact to no. X' sub-paragraph before a closing 'Planning balance' sentence draws the design and amenity strands together. She is comfortable with non-residential/employment-site casework (LSIS canopy, industrial buildings), applying the same neighbour-by-neighbour structure to industrial contexts.
· labels a distinct 'Impact to no. X [street]' sub-paragraph for each individually named neighbouring property
· closes design or amenity sections with a short 'Planning balance' summary sentence tying scale/siting/design together
· applies the same amenity structure to industrial/LSIS sites as to residential ones, referencing DM2.1A(x) for non-residential contexts
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a separate, named assessment of impact for each individually affected neighbouring property
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a closing planning-balance sentence that explicitly weighs scale, siting and design together
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an unaltered terrace roofline or unprecedented roof extension type is being introduced for the first time on that row
“Impact to no. 19 Campdale Road: This property adjoins the south side of the application property and has a single storey lower ground floor infill which extends to the depth of its adjoining outrigger”
P2021/3730/FUL
“Given the size, scale, siting and design of the infill extension, it would not have a detrimental impact to character and appearance of the building, nor would it have a significant impact to neighbouring amenity”
P2021/3730/FUL
Measured from 210 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 210 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–24.[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, 2021–24. · 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 210 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.