Harsha Bhundia.
Recently active — last recorded decision Jul 2025
A case officer at Kingston Upon Thames with an approval rate of 65% across 157 decided planning applications, spanning 33 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 Kingston Upon Thames reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Bhundia is distinctive for a rigorous community-facility/night-time-economy protection test on change-of-use applications, applying the NPPF paragraph 92 five-point community-facility framework explicitly and refusing where the applicant fails to demonstrate the facility is no longer needed, has been marketed unsuccessfully, or can be reprovided elsewhere. On section 73 variation applications for larger schemes she works methodically through each individual proposed change against the approved baseline, and gives explicit weight to legal-agreement continuity clauses (whether an existing S106 obligation would automatically extend to a varied permission).
· applies the NPPF paragraph 92 community-facility five-point test explicitly on change-of-use applications, refusing where none of the three statutory justifications (no longer needed / unsuccessfully marketed / reprovided elsewhere) is demonstrated
· on major section 73 variations, itemises each individual proposed change against the approved baseline scheme systematically before reaching an overall design conclusion
· gives explicit weight to whether an existing S106 legal agreement's continuity clause would automatically extend to a varied permission, rather than treating this as a formality
· whether the applicant has demonstrated one of the three statutory justifications (no longer needed, unsuccessfully marketed, or reprovided elsewhere) for losing a community facility
· each individual proposed change in a section 73 variation, compared systematically against the approved baseline
· whether an existing S106 legal agreement's own continuity clause would automatically bind a varied permission
“The applicant has not demonstrated that the facility is no longer required or that it has been vacant and marketed for a community use without success, or it can be re-provided elsewhere or in a different way”
20/01185/FUL
“This legal agreement precludes future occupants of and visitors to the development from applying for on-street parking permits within the surrounding controlled parking zone”
20/01360/FUL
Measured from 40 published Kingston Upon Thames 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 40 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 33 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 Kingston Upon Thames 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 Kingston Upon Thames 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 40 published Kingston Upon Thames 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.