Deniss Nikandrovs.
Recently active — last recorded decision May 2025
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 64% across 273 decided planning applications, spanning 19 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×.
Nikandrovs writes longer, more discursive character-and-appearance paragraphs than most colleagues, explicitly weighing 'established pattern of development' against a scheme's scale, and is notably willing to accept expansive roof extensions where 'various other examples of similar roof additions' exist locally. His refusals on garden-land and corner-plot schemes lean heavily on the SPD's own defined test language (e.g. 'exception (i)', 'criteria (ii)') rather than general character prose.
· explicitly weighs a scheme's scale against the 'established pattern of development' along the specific street before concluding acceptability
· justifies otherwise-borderline roof bulk by citing multiple named comparator properties with similar extensions on the same road
· on garden-land/corner-plot refusals, quotes the SPD's own lettered/numbered exception tests directly rather than paraphrasing
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: named comparator properties on the same street with similar-scale roof extensions before accepting bulk
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which specific lettered exception test in the Garden Land SPD the scheme meets or fails
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether HMO bedrooms meet minimum GIA and whether noise transference between stacked units has been addressed
“Gable ends are visible throughout Bellfield Avenue, particularly to the rear of properties along the street”
PL/0067/23
“the proposed footprint would exceed that of which could be exercised under PD”
PL/0100/23
Measured from 251 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 251 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 19 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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 Harrow planning register and published decision notices, 2020–25. · 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 — 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 251 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.