Sukhdeep Jhooti.
Recently active — last recorded decision Jan 2025
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 89% across 665 decided planning applications, spanning 15 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×.
Jhooti's reports consistently list a numbered set of 'key issues for consideration' at the top (Design, Neighbouring amenity, Fire Safety, and others as relevant) and then work through each in a matching labelled sub-section, naming individual neighbouring addresses and their existing extensions when assessing amenity impact. He cites specific prior application references for similar-sized extensions on the same street as evidence a proposal reflects the established pattern of development.
· opens each report with a numbered 'key issues for consideration' list that maps directly onto the labelled sub-sections that follow
· names individual neighbouring addresses (e.g. 'No. 22 Orleans Road') and describes their existing extension/built form before concluding on impact to that specific neighbour
· cites specific prior application references for similarly-sized extensions on the same street as evidence the proposal 'reflects the pattern of development in the locality'
· explicitly checks the BRE 45-degree test against named neighbouring windows before concluding no material loss of light/outlook
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: named comparator extensions at specific neighbouring addresses with their application references, to show a proposal fits the established local pattern
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an individual, named assessment of impact on each adjoining neighbour rather than a single blended amenity conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed extension complies with the BRE 45-degree test as measured from specific neighbouring habitable room windows
“It would be of a similar size to the extensions implemented at No. 11 Thorne Street and No. 7 Thorne Street. Similar sized extensions have been implemented at the following nearby dwellings: � 22 Thorne Street - LPA reference: 16/0575/PS192 � Approved”
21/0899/HOT
“No. 22 Orleans Road The property is the adjoining neighbour to the north of the host dwelling which currently benefits from a half width two storey rear extension.”
21/1111/HOT
“The proposed first floor extension will be of a limited depth and will not impact the 45-degree BRE test when applied to the neighbouring rear facing windows”
21/1196/HOT
Measured from 365 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 365 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 15 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–25.[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 Richmond Upon Thames planning register and published decision notices, 2021–25. · 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 — 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 365 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.