Parag Dhanani.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 63% across 478 decided planning applications, spanning 10 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 Brent reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Dhanani's reports explicitly flag when submitted drawings are not to scale or inaccurate as a blocking issue rather than proceeding on an estimate, and his HMO/C4 conversion assessments walk through the GPDO Class L criteria including the risk of exceeding six unrelated occupants. Heritage assessments cite the statutory duty under s.72 of the 1990 Act directly.
· flags inaccurate or non-scaled drawings as a reason an element of a proposal cannot be assessed, rather than estimating from what is provided
· walks GPDO Class L HMO conversion criteria including whether occupancy could exceed the six-person threshold for Use Class C4
· cites the specific statutory duty (s.72 of the 1990 Act) for conservation area decisions directly
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether submitted drawings are accurately scaled before relying on stated dimensions
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an HMO conversion risks exceeding the six-unrelated-occupant threshold for Use Class C4
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific statutory duty (s.72 of the 1990 Act) engaged by a conservation area proposal
“The submitted drawings provided are not to scale, and furthermore the supporting cover letter comments with approximations in relation to size, distance, siting, and materials.”
21/1320
“The applicant will be reminded in an informative that any more than six unrelated individual occupants would not fall within Use Class C4 and planning permission would be required.”
21/0497
Measured from 223 published Brent 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 223 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 10 rows
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.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Brent planning register and published decision notices, 2021–26. · 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 — Brent'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 223 published Brent 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.