Marcus Boddy.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 71% across 493 decided planning applications, spanning 22 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×.
Boddy's reports are dominated by householder Certificate-of-Lawfulness (GPDO Class A/B/E) checklists alongside standard extension applications, and his prose consistently anchors judgements to a named neighbouring property and a specific separation distance or projection figure rather than a general design description. On refusals he sets out the GPDO/Class test methodically, clause by clause, before concluding non-compliance; on grants he tends to work through each neighbour in turn ('Impact towards No. 11 Bentley Way', 'Impact towards No. 7 Bentley way') with a distance or degree-code test for each.
· works through GPDO/Certificate-of-Lawfulness class tests clause by clause (a, b, c...) with an explicit volume calculation before concluding compliance or non-compliance
· addresses residential amenity neighbour-by-neighbour under a named heading ('Impact towards No. 11 Bentley Way') rather than one combined amenity paragraph
· cites the exact separation distance in metres when assessing overlooking or overshadowing for air conditioning/plant equipment and extensions alike
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise GPDO volume calculation (width x height x depth) rather than a qualitative size description
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the named neighbouring property and its exact separation distance for each amenity impact assessed
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a noise verification report is needed post-installation for plant equipment before use commences
“It is considered that the air conditioning units and air source heat pumps adjacent to this neighbour has no effect in terms of overshadowing or other visual impacts”
PL/0104/23
“The applicant has failed to submit plans showing the outbuilding and the respective heights, depth and floor areas”
PL/0153/23
Measured from 559 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 559 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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, 2022–26. · 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 559 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.