Ramasankaran Rajendran.
Last recorded decision Feb 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 76% across 32 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 Richmond Upon Thames reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Rajendran's reports give precise physical dimensions for extensions and outbuildings (depth, eaves height, maximum height, width) before assessing acceptability, and he repeatedly cross-references specific comparator addresses and application numbers on the same street to justify why a scheme is or is not out of character. He frequently separates a scheme into named sub-elements (e.g. 'Rear dormer' then 'Front porch') within a single report rather than treating the whole proposal as one design issue.
· states exact dimensions (depth, eaves height, maximum height, width) for the specific extension/outbuilding before reaching a design conclusion
· names specific comparator properties and their application references on the same street to support a 'not out of character' finding
· breaks a single application into separately-headed physical elements (e.g. rear dormer, then front porch) each assessed in turn
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: precise measurements of the proposed extension or structure (depth, eaves height, maximum height) checked against SPD depth/height limits
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: named comparator extensions/outbuildings at specific neighbouring addresses, with their application references, to establish local pattern
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed bin/bike or garden store is taller or larger than other approved examples in the borough, treated as a reason it becomes highly visible
“given the rear elevation of the dormer would be set in from the eaves by approx. 0.2m, this is considered adequate to restrict lines of sight into neighbouring gardens”
23/0992/HOT
“it would be similar to the scale of the existing extensions to other ground floor extensions visible in the surrounding area, such as the No. 19 (16/3328/HOT) 19 Devon Avenue, ensuring that the proposed development would not appear incongruous in the context of the terrace”
23/2636/HOT 17 Devon Avenue Twickenham TW2 6PN Proposed single storey rear extension Ramasankaran Rajendran 22.11.2023
“the bin/bike store is larger than the other approved bin/bike stores at the front garden in the borough. Consequently, it interrupts the openness of the front gardens”
23/1831/HOT
Measured from 50 published Richmond 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 50 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 10 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–24.[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 Richmond Upon Thames planning register and published decision notices, 2023–24. · 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 — Richmond Upon Thames'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 50 published Richmond 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.