Michele Katzler.
Recently active — last recorded decision Apr 2025
A case officer at Bexley with an approval rate of 73% across 339 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 Bexley reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Katzler handles the most substantial new-build/infill schemes among the coded officers, and is distinctive for engaging in granular parking-stress arithmetic — commissioning and citing an overnight parking stress survey's specific percentage figure and comparing it against a defined 'stress threshold' before concluding a car-free/low-parking scheme is 'marginally above the stress threshold' but still acceptable on balance given housing need. She is unusually willing to REMOVE specific permitted development rights (Part 1, Schedule 2 GPDO) by condition on new dwellings with constrained plot relationships, rather than relying on generic future-proofing language, to ensure any future extension is separately assessed. On a change-of-use refusal for a Muslim community/tuition centre she is notable for declining to comment on physical/amenity matters where 'no change to the outside of the building' was proposed, instead refusing on the Transport Statement's inadequate benchmarking methodology — a technical rather than a subjective ground.
· cites a specific parking-stress survey percentage figure against a defined stress threshold, explicitly reasoning 'on balance' that housing delivery justifies a marginal parking-stress increase rather than treating any stress increase as an automatic objection
· removes specific Part 1/Schedule 2 GPDO permitted development rights by condition on new dwellings with constrained neighbour relationships, rather than relying on generic future-proofing language
· on change-of-use refusals, distinguishes cleanly between physical/amenity matters (declined to comment where no external change is proposed) and technical/methodological grounds (an inadequately benchmarked Transport Statement), refusing on the latter specifically
· the specific percentage parking-stress-survey finding and how it compares to the Council's defined stress threshold
· whether specific GPDO permitted development rights (Part 1 Schedule 2) should be removed by condition given a new dwelling's constrained relationship to its plot and neighbours
· whether a submitted Transport Statement's benchmark site was genuinely comparable (matched PTAL/context) before accepting its trip-generation conclusions
“the percentage of parking is marginally above the stress threshold, and the quality of the development and housing contribution to the borough is considered to justify that possible impact”
23/00187/FUL
“Highways Officers have examined the Transport Statement provided and have concluded that it does not give sufficient evidence that the proposal would not give rise to a significant rise in car travel to the site. This is due to the fact that a non-comparable site, in an area of higher PTAL (transport accessibility) rating, was used a benchmark when extrapolating the projected journey numbers”
23/00382/FUL
Measured from 118 published Bexley 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 118 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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 Bexley planning register and published decision notices, 2020–25. · 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 — Bexley's decision-notice parsing is limited coverage, so no borough or officer figure is shown.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 118 published Bexley 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.