Kanchan Sharma.
Active — last recorded decision Nov 2025
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 87% across 157 decided planning applications, spanning 21 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×.
Sharma's larger-home prior-approval reports work through Criterion D's amenity considerations for each adjacent neighbour in turn, and consistently translate the SPD's own depth allowances into the exact metre figure applicable to the specific boundary relationship (semi-detached vs detached neighbour) rather than citing a single blanket depth. She also handles a mix of Green Belt and conservation-area schemes, and her Green Belt paragraphs walk through footprint/floor-area percentage-increase tables before assessing openness.
· translates the SPD's own depth allowance into the exact metre figure specific to each adjoining boundary type (e.g. 4 metres for a semi-detached neighbour, 3 metres for a detached one) rather than a single blanket standard
· for prior-approval Class A extensions, addresses Criterion D's amenity considerations property-by-property using the same 'Assessment of Amenity on Adjoining Properties' heading each time
· on Green Belt sites, walks through footprint and volume percentage-increase tables from the original building before assessing whether very special circumstances are engaged
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific SPD depth allowance figure that applies to the exact boundary relationship type (semi-detached vs detached neighbour), not a single blanket depth
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a discrete amenity assessment for each individually named adjoining property under prior-approval Criterion D
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the percentage increase in footprint and volume from the ORIGINAL Green Belt building before assessing whether inappropriate development is engaged
“Criterion D cites specific considerations of amenity”
PL/3307/24
“The Council's SPD makes an allowance for 4 metres depth adjacent to the boundary of an adjoining semi-detached dwelling, which can include a depth beyond the rear wall of any adjoining property's own extensions or original elevations, on the basis that this is consistent with the impacts of conventional permitted development”
PL/0344/25
Measured from 209 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 cited most on decision notices for applications Kanchan Sharma decided — 134 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.
Show all 21 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–25.[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, 2024–25. · 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 209 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.