Sanchita Raghunathan.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 92% across 128 decided planning applications, spanning 11 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×.
Raghunathan credits negotiated amendments that RETAIN specific historic elements (a set of historic cupboards) as making an application acceptable, and consistently checks whether a proposed intervention lands on already-modernised fabric (a boxed-in chimney breast, non-original cornicing) before ruling out harm. On S.73/condition-discharge applications she refuses outright where submitted drawings simply fail to show the SPECIFIC detail a condition required (e.g. omitting floor levelling/joist notching), rather than treating close-but-incomplete compliance as sufficient.
· credits a negotiated amendment that specifically RETAINS a historic element (cupboards, proportions) as the factor making an otherwise-borderline application acceptable
· checks whether the specific fabric an intervention lands on (a chimney breast, cornicing) is already modernised/compromised before ruling out harm, rather than assuming any intervention near historic fabric is harmful
· refuses a condition-discharge application where the submitted drawings simply do not show the SPECIFIC detail the condition required, rather than treating near-compliance as sufficient
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a negotiated amendment specifically retains a historic element, making an otherwise-borderline scheme acceptable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the specific fabric an intervention lands on is already modernised/compromised, rather than assuming proximity to a listed building means harm
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether submitted drawings actually show the SPECIFIC detail a discharge condition required, not just something close to it
“The proposals were amended during the course of the application and now retain the historic cupboards at the rear bedroom as well as other revisions which make the application acceptable in principle”
24/00731/LBC
“The proposed drawings in regard to Condition 5 do not show the required details and would result in harm to the special interest of the listed building, contrary to the requirements of the condition”
24/02864/ADLBC
Measured from 70 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 70 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 11 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–26.[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, 2024–26. · 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 70 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.