Akshay Sisodia.
Last recorded decision Apr 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 70% across 310 decided planning applications, spanning 15 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×.
Sisodia's reports run across a broad mix of application types (from single Certificates of Lawfulness to a car park committee report) and his design-acceptability paragraphs are notable for explicitly weighing symmetry impact on a semi-detached pairing as its own named consideration distinct from general character harm. His larger-scheme reports systematically address a full consultee-by-consultee response log at the close, addressing named individual objections point by point with an 'Officer Response:' label.
· explicitly assesses impact on the symmetry of a semi-detached pairing as a distinct named consideration, separate from general street-scene character harm
· closes larger reports with a structured consultee objection log, each point addressed under an explicit 'Officer Response:' label rather than folded into general prose
· on garden-land principle assessments, calculates the maximum footprint achievable under a fallback permitted-development scenario before judging whether the proposed footprint exceeds it
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed extension disrupts the visual symmetry of a semi-detached pairing, assessed as its own named consideration
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the maximum footprint achievable under a fallback permitted-development calculation before judging whether the actual proposal exceeds it
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each individual named consultee objection addressed with its own labelled 'Officer Response:' rather than a general summary
“The proposal would impact upon the symmetry between No. 20 and 18 Eliot Drive as a semi-detached pairing however the impact of this is not significant enough to result in undue harm”
PL/0072/23
“The Local Planning Authority have concluded that this property could be considered as having two rear elevations and therefore two 4m deep rear extensions could be achieved”
PL/0325/23
Measured from 30 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 30 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 15 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–24.[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 Harrow planning register and published decision notices, 2020–24. · 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 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 30 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.