Dino Ustic.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 62% across 34 decided planning applications, spanning 13 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 Harrow reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Ustic's reports concentrate on larger multi-unit and Green Belt schemes and are notably comprehensive in citing the full framework list at the close of every report (naming every London Plan, Core Strategy and DMP policy engaged), which is unusually exhaustive compared to peers. His unit-by-unit space-standards tables are consistently laid out with required vs proposed GIA for every flat, and his Green Belt paragraphs cite the specific NPPF paragraph numbers (142, 143, 152, 154) by number rather than by description.
· closes reports with an unusually exhaustive full policy-framework citation list naming every engaged London Plan, Core Strategy, DMP and SPD reference, not just the headline ones
· tabulates required vs proposed GIA for every individual unit in a multi-unit scheme, not just a summary statement
· cites Green Belt NPPF paragraphs by their specific number (142, 143, 152, 154) rather than paraphrasing the test
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the required vs proposed GIA for every individual unit in a multi-unit scheme laid out as its own row
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific NPPF paragraph number underpinning a Green Belt harm/exception test
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether Secured by Design accreditation evidence has been submitted before occupation for larger schemes
“officers have taken a balanced view and conclude that the proposal would not constitute garden land development”
P/0539/23
“The applicant would have been encouraged to engage with the Council's Designing Out Crime Officer”
P/0539/23
Measured from 22 published Harrow 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 22 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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 Harrow planning register and published decision notices, 2022–26. · 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 Harrow 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 22 published Harrow 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.