Imogen Botterill-Downs.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 80% across 442 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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 Ealing reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Botterill-Downs runs her assessments through a consistent floor-by-floor sub-heading structure on multi-storey extensions ("GROUND FLOOR ASSESSMENT", "FIRST FLOOR ASSESSMENT"), treating each storey's design and amenity impact as a separately reasoned element rather than one combined judgement. She quantifies internal quality metrics (headroom percentage of GIA, bedroom widths) precisely against the London Plan's Table 3.1 space standards and is explicit about splitting private amenity space between resulting units.
· splits multi-storey extension proposals into a separate labelled assessment for each floor (ground floor element, first floor element) rather than one combined design judgement
· quantifies headroom compliance as a percentage of GIA against the specific London Plan/Nationally Described Space Standards ceiling-height thresholds
· itemises exactly how a divided rear garden's private amenity space is allocated between the resulting flats, in square metres per unit
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a separate design and amenity judgement for each individual storey of a proposed extension, not a single combined verdict
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the percentage of a unit's Gross Internal Area meeting the 2.3m/2.5m headroom threshold under the Nationally Described Space Standards
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific square-metre allocation of private amenity space to each resulting unit when a garden is split between a conversion's flats
“The ground floor element is proposed to extend 1m deep from the existing front elevation of the parent dwellinghouse, as well as extend 3m from the side elevation continue the full length of the existing house”
225206HH
“Flat A will have benefit from 17.2 sqm of outdoor amenity space and Flat B (host property) will benefit from 22.9 sqm of private outdoor amenity space”
225388FUL
Measured from 151 published Ealing 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 151 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 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 Ealing 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 Ealing 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 151 published Ealing 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.