Kimia Khatmian.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 77% across 240 decided planning applications, spanning 12 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×.
Khatmian has an unusually high refusal rate and is exacting about what a submission FAILS to include — refusing where key elements (extract-duct elevation drawings, a noise impact assessment) were simply never provided, making proper assessment impossible, rather than assessing on the balance of what was submitted. She also refuses proposals as 'premature' where the underlying lawful use of a site is itself disputed or unresolved (a 'nil use' site), rather than assessing the specific application in isolation from that unresolved status.
· refuses where a submission omits key assessable detail (extract-duct elevation drawings, a noise impact assessment) that makes proper evaluation impossible, treating the omission itself as the ground for refusal
· refuses an application as 'premature' where the site's own underlying lawful use is disputed or unresolved, rather than assessing the specific proposal (e.g. a duct) independent of that unresolved status
· distinguishes information provided as background (a structural methodology statement reviewed by Building Control) from information that would ACTUALLY have secured approval had other aspects been acceptable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether key assessable technical detail (duct elevations, noise assessment) was actually submitted, refusing where it is simply absent
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a site's underlying lawful use status is itself disputed or unresolved before assessing an unrelated element of a scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: what specific conditions WOULD have been required had the application otherwise been acceptable, stated explicitly even on a refusal
“the proposal lacks a full noise impact assessment and is unclear regarding any external alterations to the building in this aspect. The proposal therefore provides insufficient information and is recommended for refusal on amenity grounds”
22/08427/FULL
“it would be considered premature and inappropriate to grant planning permission for a development on the site, such as the installation of an extract duct, when the underlying use of the site does not benefit from a lawful use”
23/07764/FULL
Measured from 150 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 150 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 12 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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, 2022–26. · 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 150 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.