Agneta Kabele.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Southwark with an approval rate of 91% across 478 decided planning applications, spanning 23 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 Southwark reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Kabele's design assessments are built almost entirely around named precedent applications on the SAME street, citing their planning references directly to justify a scale or depth as already established. Her amenity paragraphs pair each precedent citation with the exact eaves height in metres for the current proposal.
· names specific precedent applications on the same street by their planning reference before judging the current scheme's scale acceptable
· states the precise eaves height in metres at each affected boundary alongside the precedent comparison
· distinguishes 'own garden' facing openings (accepted without further comment) from side-elevation windows overlooking a named neighbour (given fuller privacy assessment)
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a named precedent application on the same street with its own planning reference as the direct comparator
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact eaves height in metres bearing on each affected neighbour's daylight/sunlight
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether new windows face the applicant's own garden (low concern) or a named neighbour (fuller privacy review)
“Similar development proposals of ground floor side return infill and first floor rear extensions have been approved on Yalding Road (15/AP/2480, 05/AP/2431)”
21/AP/0908
“A precedence has been set by the neighbouring property at No.103 where a similar proposal of a front single storey extension has been granted (15/AP/3536)”
21/AP/1117
Measured from 411 published Southwark 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 411 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 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 Southwark 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 Southwark 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 411 published Southwark 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.