Michael Kotoh-Mortty.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 59% across 542 decided planning applications, spanning 20 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 Enfield reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Kotoh-Mortty writes narrative, numbered-paragraph reports (the 'LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD' committee/delegated template) and leans heavily on a vocabulary of townscape 'typologies': he repeatedly frames a scheme's acceptability in terms of whether it 'maintains a subservient appearance' relative to the host dwelling and whether it disrupts the 'common alignment of rear extensions' along a street. He is comfortable naming a specific harmful pattern by name, coining a 'leapfrogging effect' where a cumulative rear-extension depth would distort the established building line.
· assesses extensions against 'character typologies' of the specific street rather than the DMD11 depth figure alone, explicitly tolerating excess depth where neighbouring precedent supports it
· names departures from the established rear building line as creating a 'leapfrogging effect' rather than just citing non-compliance
· distinguishes single-storey and first-floor extension tests explicitly (45-degree line at ground floor vs the DMD11 first-floor criteria) within the same paragraph
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the proposed extension would maintain a 'subservient appearance' relative to the existing series of buildings on the street
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific, named neighbouring precedent for the proposed extension depth before accepting a departure from DMD11's 3m guideline
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether cumulative extension depth (existing plus proposed) would distort the common rear alignment and create a 'leapfrogging effect'
“The proposal which would result in a cumulative rear extension depth of 10.5m at the rear elevation which includes an infill to the side of the existing outrigger is considered excessive and this would distort the common alignment of rear extensions along this side of the street by creating a `leapfrogging effect', which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of both the subject dwelling and the”
20/00388/HOU
“Given the character typologies of end-of-terrace dwellings within the area having footprints close to the side boundaries, the proposed side extension would maintain a subservient appearance and as a result it would not harmfully unbalance the existing series of buildings or result in a harmful loss of openness in this section of the street”
20/00238/HOU
Measured from 522 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.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 522 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 20 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 Enfield 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 Enfield 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 522 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.