Samir Benmbarek.
Last recorded decision Apr 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 74% across 346 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 Islington reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Benmbarek's reports retain numbered paragraph markers from the source documents and split neighbour amenity into separate Daylight/Sunlight, Outlook, and Privacy sub-headings rather than one combined section. He will state plainly that an element is undesirable in design terms yet accept it 'on balance' or 'in this instance', citing prior permissions on the same site or site constraints as the reason refusal is not warranted.
· splits neighbour amenity into separate Daylight/Sunlight, Outlook and Privacy sub-headings
· states that an element is undesirable or falls short of a standard but accepts it 'in this instance', giving a site-specific reason (prior permission, site constraints)
· references an expired or lapsed prior permission on the same site as contextual support for the current principle of development
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: daylight/sunlight, outlook, and privacy addressed as distinct labelled sub-sections rather than combined
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a site-specific justification (constraints, prior permission) when a policy standard such as outdoor amenity or cycle parking cannot be met
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an expired or lapsed permission on the same site supports the current principle of development
“The principle of developing the majority of the rear garden is undesirable in design terms; however, this would not warrant a reason for refusal in this instance.”
P2020/0676/FUL
“Given the consideration that there is an expired permission for a roof extension of a comparable scale at the application site”
P2020/0264/FUL
Measured from 156 published Islington 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 156 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[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 Islington planning register and published decision notices, 2020–23. · 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 Islington 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 156 published Islington 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.