Aadil Essa1.
Active — last recorded decision Feb 2026
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 76% across 80 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 Harrow reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Essa's HMO refusals work through each numbered policy sub-criterion (DM30(a), (b), (c)) as its own discrete non-compliance conclusion, and his standard of accommodation assessments tabulate per-bedroom GIA against the minimum requirement with an explicit Y/N compliance column for every room. He is notably attentive to privacy risk from bay/corner windows specifically, naming the exact window position that creates direct overlooking.
· assesses each numbered HMO policy sub-criterion (DM30(a), (b), (c)) as its own separate non-compliance conclusion rather than one combined verdict
· tabulates per-bedroom GIA against the minimum standard with an explicit compliance column for every individual room in a scheme
· identifies privacy risk by naming the exact window position (e.g. 'the corner window of the bay positioned within the front porch') rather than a general overlooking statement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which specific numbered sub-criterion of Policy DM30 a scheme fails, assessed one at a time
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the individual GIA compliance status of every bedroom in a scheme, not a summary statement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact position of a window (e.g. a corner bay window) that would create direct overlooking, rather than a general privacy statement
“The site is not located within a town centre area and has a low PTAL rating of 1b indicating highly constrained access to public transport”
PL/0756/25
“the corner window of the bay positioned within the front porch. This is unacceptable as it would compromise the privacy for this bedroom due to direct overlooking”
PL/0756/25
Measured from 100 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 100 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 20 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–26.[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, 2024–26. · 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 100 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.