Deborah Ewenla.
Last recorded decision Aug 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 63% across 28 decided planning applications, spanning 16 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.
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×.
Ewenla's corpus is dominated by prior-approval larger-home-extension applications and is notable for its consistent structure: 'Criterion D cites specific considerations of amenity' followed by an 'Impacts to Occupant/Neighbour amenities' section addressed strictly property-by-property with the exact rear-elevation projection distance for each named neighbour. She is one of the few officers to routinely flag when a submitted height has been measured from the wrong datum (patio level rather than natural ground level).
· addresses prior-approval amenity impacts strictly property-by-property under 'Impacts to Occupant/Neighbour amenities', citing the exact projection distance from each named neighbour's own rear elevation
· checks whether submitted height/eaves figures have been measured from the correct datum (natural ground level, not patio or raised deck level) and flags discrepancies explicitly
· for prior-approval schemes, states plainly whether the design 'meets the prior approval development requirements' as a discrete pass/fail sentence before any further discussion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether submitted height/eaves measurements were taken from natural ground level rather than a raised patio or deck level
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact rear-elevation projection distance from each named neighbouring property's own extension, not just the boundary distance
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a discrete pass/fail statement on whether the prior-approval development requirements under the specific GPDO limitation are met before further discussion
“the proposed rear extension would fail to take into inconsideration the significant site level changes of the site, whereby the maximum height and eaves height have been taken from the patio level rather than the natural ground level”
PL/1927/24
“the 45 degree line would be breached, when taken from the window corner of this property”
PL/1891/24
Measured from 164 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 164 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 16 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–24.[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, 2023–24. · 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 164 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.