Ben Greene.
Last recorded decision Apr 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 79% across 183 decided planning applications, spanning 12 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×.
Greene's outbuilding and garden-structure reports work systematically through what the structure is used for and whether that use is genuinely ancillary to the main dwelling, treating independent accessibility (a separate front door/gate onto the street) as the deciding factor for whether an outbuilding risks becoming a self-contained dwelling. His refusals on locally listed/conservation area sites cite appeal decisions on the same or comparable sites by reference.
· on outbuildings, treats independent street-facing access (separate front door, independent gate/path) as the deciding factor for whether a structure would function as a self-contained dwelling rather than ancillary space
· cites prior appeal decisions on the same site by their APP reference number to support a design refusal
· assesses outbuilding overlooking risk via the specific compass-facing elevation of each opening rather than a blanket overlooking statement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an outbuilding has independent street-facing access, which would suggest a risk of separate dwelling use
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific appeal reference (APP/...) for a comparable prior refusal on the same or a similar site
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the compass-facing direction of each proposed opening when assessing overlooking risk to a specific neighbour
“the proposed outbuilding would be independently accessible via the main street frontage along Capel Gardens with a front door fronting the street and with an independent entrance gate and path”
PL/0071/23
“the inspector noting that while the side extension would be subservient in nature, have a sympathetic roof form and single storey height, the proposed development would subsequently appear disproportionately large”
PL/0158/23
Measured from 94 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 94 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 12 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–24.[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 Harrow planning register and published decision notices, 2022–24. · 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 — 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 94 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.