Avani Raven.
Active — last recorded decision Mar 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 64% across 392 decided planning applications, spanning 13 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 Westminster reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Raven's caseload has the highest refusal share seen among the top officers in this corpus (roughly a third of reports read), driven substantially by telecoms mast/antenna prior-approval cases in Maida Vale, where she is willing to refuse based on harm to a building's roofscape even when the building itself is unlisted and outside a conservation area, reasoning instead from the building's contribution to protected townscape views from public vantage points nearby. She is procedurally exacting on prior-approval timing (checking submitted evidence dates against statutory determination deadlines) and, on CLEUD work, records a personal officer site visit as corroborating evidence rather than relying on documents alone. On repeat/renewal applications she carefully distinguishes what has changed from the earlier approved scheme (e.g. an added Site Investigation Report) even when recommending approval of an identical proposal.
· assesses harm to an unlisted building's roofscape via its contribution to protected TOWNSCAPE VIEWS from public vantage points, even where the building itself sits outside a conservation area
· checks submitted evidence dates (proof of delivery, compliance declarations) against statutory prior-approval determination deadlines for internal consistency
· on CLEUD applications, records a personal officer site visit and states whether the physical layout matches the submitted drawings, rather than relying on documentary evidence alone
· on repeat/renewal applications for an identical scheme, itemises precisely what additional evidence has been added since the earlier approval rather than treating it as unchanged
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a building's contribution to protected townscape views from a nearby public vantage point, independent of its own listed/conservation-area status
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: internal date-consistency across an applicant's submitted prior-approval evidence against the statutory determination clock
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a personal officer site visit corroborating (or not) the submitted drawings on CLEUD applications
“Whilst the building is not in a conservation area, the building and its largely clutter free roofscape is directly seen in townscape views that are within the conservation area and contributes to the visual amenity, character and appearance of the Maida Vale Conservation Area.”
20/00469/TELCOM
“An Officer visited the property on 11 March 2020. The layout of the premises was consistent with the submitted drawing submitted as Appendix 2 in support of this application”
20/00501/CLEUD
“There is also an additional Site Investigation Report which has been included with the current application which has not previously been submitted.”
20/01178/FULL
Measured from 314 published Westminster 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 314 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 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 Westminster 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 Westminster 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 314 published Westminster 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.