Kimia Khatmian.
Last recorded decision Mar 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Newham with an approval rate of 76% across 353 decided planning applications, spanning 26 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 Newham reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Khatmian's reports lean on precise depth/height figures for each extension element (e.g. exact projection and eaves height per boundary) and repeatedly returns to a site's own planning history, including a prior refusal on the same address, to frame why a revised scheme is now acceptable. Her CLP/prior-approval refusals are built on a single, narrowly stated clarity gap (e.g. an unresolved chimney detail) rather than a broad objection.
· states the exact metric projection/height of each extension element against each affected boundary in turn
· expressly cross-references the site's own prior refusal or approval reference to justify the current recommendation
· narrows a CLP refusal to one specific unresolved plan detail rather than a general non-compliance finding
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an exact metric figure for every extension element's projection and height, not a general description
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the site's own planning history (own refusal/approval refs) as the direct precedent for the current decision
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: one clearly identified missing plan detail as the basis for a CLP refusal rather than a general objection
“The proposed depth of the extension (8.15m) is not an ideal depth for rear extensions and in some instances would not be considered acceptable, however, in this specific site, taking into account the existing neighbour structure (no. 8 Oregon Avenue) which benefits from a deep rear extension, officers consider that the proposed depth… would be acceptable”
14/00714/CLP
“Of particular concern is the existing rear chimney. As in the proposed loft plan the rear side chimney would be kept but on the proposed roof plan it would… be partly covered by the flat roof. As such officers are unable to have a clear understanding of the proposal about the chimney”
21/02025/CLP
Measured from 442 published Newham 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 442 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 26 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–24.[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 Newham planning register and published decision notices, 2021–24. · 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 Newham 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 442 published Newham 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.