Development Intent
AtlasHarrowOfficersAgnes Wanja
Planning Atlas›Harrow›Agnes Wanja
Case officer · Harrow Planning

Agnes Wanja.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 76% across 518 decided planning applications, spanning 22 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer518 decisions76% approvalSave
Harrow · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
518
Applications
2021–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%70%202276%202378%202482%202564%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate76% · 33rd of 72
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports314 officer reports parsed
16%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
2%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
6%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
62%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Harrow's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Harrow reports. Attention, not stance.

Outlook & amenity
1.57× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.27× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.19× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.03× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.02× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Wanja's reports work heavily through the borough's own Y/N checklist pro-forma (protected windows, two-for-one rule, building line variation) rather than free narrative, and her justification text under 'Justify (if yes)' entries is terse and lists the specific mitigating factor ticked rather than a discursive explanation. She is one of the more frequent users of the 'set away from side boundary' and 'staggered building line' mitigating grounds for depth breaches.

Observable habits

· answers the borough's Y/N checklist pro-forma directly, then adds only a short named-mitigating-factor sentence under 'Justify (if yes)' rather than a full paragraph

· justifies depth non-compliance via a specific checklist ground (staggered building line, adjacent dwelling set away from the boundary) rather than a bespoke argument

· for garage-conversion proposals, treats the loss of driveway parking space as the central acceptability test

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which specific checklist mitigating factor (staggered building line, neighbour set away from boundary) applies before accepting a depth breach

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a garage conversion still leaves sufficient off-street parking depth for the driveway

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether proposed hardstanding is permeable paving to mitigate surface water flood risk

Assigned Agnes Wanja on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“The propsoed rear extesion would be 3m at the boundary then set away from the bounday then project further to have an overall depth of 5.5m”

PL/0055/23

“Malvern Avenue is characterised by wide vehicle access and open frontage”

PL/0077/23

Measured from 314 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 314 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D3
130 times cited
D12
121 times cited
DM1Achieving a High Standard of Development
116 times cited
CS1.B
110 times cited
DM10On Site Water Management and Surface Water Attenuation
107 times cited
DM7Heritage Assets
14 times cited
D11
12 times cited
DM2Achieving Lifetime Neighbourhoods
10 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
101
77%
88
79%
54
85%
45
67%
41
80%
40
70%
34
70%
27
81%
17
87%
14
70%
12
80%
6
75%
6
80%
5
33%
5
75%
4
0%
4
100%
4
33%
3
67%
3
50%
2
0%
2
100%
101
77%
88
79%
54
85%
Show all 22 rows
45
67%
41
80%
40
70%
34
70%
27
81%
17
87%
14
70%
12
80%
6
75%
6
80%
5
33%
5
75%
4
0%
4
100%
4
33%
3
67%
3
50%
2
0%
2
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
PL/1470/26
Householder
—
2026-05-29
PL/1045/25
Householder
Approved
2026-05-28
PL/1470/26
Householder
—
2026-05-29
PL/1045/25
Householder
Approved
2026-05-28
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 518 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. KRN Design Studio
2. Construct 360 T/AS DontMoveExtend.com
3. SSK Architects Ltd
4. KDB Building Designs Ltd
At a glance
OfficerAgnes Wanja
BoroughHarrow
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications518 (2021–26)
Approval rate76%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Harrow planning register and published decision notices, 2021–26. · methodology
  2. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 314 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.