Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersDino Ustic
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Dino Ustic
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Dino Ustic.

Last recorded decision Jun 2023 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 86% across 412 decided planning applications, spanning 20 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer412 decisions86% approvalSave
Enfield · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
412
Applications
2020–23
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%80%202088%202190%202277%2023
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate86% · 10th of 63
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports334 officer reports parsed
5%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
4%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
5%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
67%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Enfield's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Enfield reports. Attention, not stance.

Privacy & overlooking
1.69× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.58× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.55× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.54× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.44× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Ustic writes methodical, numbered narrative reports and is one of the most measurement-precise officers in the corpus: he routinely states the exact depth of a proposed extension in metres and tests it directly against the 45-degree rule taken from the midpoint of the nearest original window, explicitly naming which neighbour is or is not intercepted. He treats the presence of similar extensions in the immediate vicinity as establishing that such extensions 'are characterful of the area', using that finding to justify departures from the DMD11 depth guideline.

Observable habits

· states the proposed extension's depth to two decimal places and directly tests it against the 45-degree line from the midpoint of the nearest original window, naming which properties are or aren't intercepted

· concludes 'other examples of similar rear extensions are present' as a standalone finding that such extensions have become 'characterful of the area', used to justify a non-compliant depth

· separates the character/appearance assessment from the neighbouring-amenity assessment into distinct headed sub-sections even where both concern the same extension

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a line taken at 45 degrees from the midpoint of the nearest original ground-floor window would be intercepted by the proposed extension

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether similar-depth extensions already exist in the immediate vicinity, establishing the proposed depth as characterful rather than anomalous

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise stated depth, width and eaves height of the proposed extension set against each affected neighbour in turn

Assigned Dino Ustic on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“The proposed single storey extension on the ground floor would measure 1.8 metres in depth to the side facing No. 13. A line taken at a 45-degree from the mid-point of the nearest original ground floor window, No. 13, would not be intercepted. No side windows are proposed to this neighbouring occupier mitigating any potential harm with regard to overlooking”

20/01497/FUL

“Other examples of single storey rear extensions are common within the immediate vicinity of the area. Therefore, it can be considered that such rear extensions are characterful of the area”

20/01497/FUL

Measured from 334 published Enfield 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 334 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

5.4
16 times cited
D4
16 times cited
6.2
6 times cited
6.1
6 times cited
6.3
4 times cited
6.4
3 times cited
D1
1 times cited
DMD 9
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
61
92%
47
86%
36
91%
34
91%
33
71%
31
93%
28
82%
26
92%
22
78%
21
83%
17
71%
14
92%
12
83%
8
100%
7
57%
5
100%
4
33%
3
100%
2
100%
1
100%
61
92%
47
86%
36
91%
Show all 20 rows
34
91%
33
71%
31
93%
28
82%
26
92%
22
78%
21
83%
17
71%
14
92%
12
83%
8
100%
7
57%
5
100%
4
33%
3
100%
2
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
23/01774/FUL
Full
Refused
2023-08-02
23/01607/FUL
Full
Approved
2023-07-31
23/01774/FUL
Full
Refused
2023-08-02
23/01607/FUL
Full
Approved
2023-07-31
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 412 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. ERK STRUCTURAL & DESIGN CONSULTANCY
2. John Perrin & Sons Ltd
3. Capital Architectural Design
4. Hertford Planning Service
At a glance
OfficerDino Ustic
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications412 (2020–23)
Approval rate86%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Enfield planning register and published decision notices, 2020–23. · methodology
  2. [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. [3]Condition load — mean effective conditions attached to Enfield decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
  4. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 334 published Enfield 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.