Sandra Chivero.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 91% across 362 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×.
Chivero's window-replacement reports for social housing reuse a near-identical template paragraph across multiple applications, stating the proposed glazing thickness against a stated preferred maximum for the period/conservation context. Her more complex reports (a Grade II chapel forecourt, a basement excavation) give closer engagement with tree-root and groundwater technical evidence than the routine window cases.
· states the proposed glazing bar/frame thickness against a specific preferred maximum (e.g. 14mm) for the building's period and context
· reuses a near-identical assessment template across sequential window-replacement applications for the same estate
· engages with named technical evidence (groundwater borehole records, tree root severance risk) in basement or excavation cases rather than a general acceptability statement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a stated glazing/frame thickness figure compared against a specific preferred maximum for that building's period and setting
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: named groundwater or geological evidence (borehole records, aquifer classification) for basement excavation proposals
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a Tree Officer's specific root-protection requirements addressed with a named methodology, not just a general assurance
“The rear elevation windows with a total thickness of 24mm would be thicker than preferred for Victorian buildings and conservations areas (typically a maximum thickness of 14mm is preferable).”
P2021/3190/FUL
“Based on BGS borehole records, in the surrounding area… rest levels [are] occasionally noted at depths of ~3.10 - 3.50 mbgl within the superficial deposits”
P2021/2097/FUL
Measured from 110 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 110 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 110 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.