Madara Tukisa.
Recently active — last recorded decision Feb 2025
A case officer at Bexley with an approval rate of 85% across 35 decided planning applications, spanning 12 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 Bexley reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Tukisa's small caseload is dominated by non-material amendments and permission-in-principle/technical-details-consent (PIP/TECHDT) two-stage applications, and is distinctive for keeping the two consent stages strictly separate — explicitly confining a technical-details-consent assessment to matters not already settled at the permission-in-principle stage (location, land use, amount of development), rather than re-litigating principle. She gives quantified fenestration change findings for non-material amendments (increase in floor area, altered window projection angle) as the deciding factor for materiality, and checks Biodiversity Net Gain EXEMPTION eligibility explicitly for self-build/custom-build schemes rather than assuming BNG applies universally.
· strictly separates the permission-in-principle stage (location, land use, amount of development) from the technical-details-consent stage's own narrower scope, explicitly declining to re-litigate settled principle matters
· treats quantified fenestration changes (floor area increase, window projection angle) as the deciding factor for whether a non-material amendment crosses into materiality
· explicitly checks Biodiversity Net Gain EXEMPTION eligibility for self-build/custom-build schemes rather than assuming the statutory 10% BNG requirement applies universally
· whether a technical-details-consent application is straying into matters (location, land use, amount of development) already settled at the permission-in-principle stage
· whether a proposed fenestration change increases floor area or alters window projection, as the deciding factor for non-material-amendment materiality
· whether a scheme qualifies for the Biodiversity Net Gain self-build/custom-build exemption rather than being subject to the standard 10% requirement
“In granting 23/03399/PIP the scope of permission in principle is limited to: -location, -land use and, -amount of development. Other matters are to be considered at the technical details consent stage”
24/01470/TECHDT
“the application has been submitted as a self-build and custom development which is accompanied by a Biodiversity Net Gain Exemption Statement. On these grounds the application would not be subject to mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain requirements”
24/01470/TECHDT
Measured from 27 published Bexley 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 27 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 12 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–25.[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 Bexley planning register and published decision notices, 2023–25. · 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 — Bexley's decision-notice parsing is limited coverage, so no borough or officer figure is shown.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 27 published Bexley 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.