Catriona Cooke.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 73% across 440 decided planning applications, spanning 22 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×.
Cooke's corpus is heavily weighted toward Certificate of Lawfulness applications (GPDO checklist volume calculations) alongside standard householder extensions, and where she does write free narrative she is explicit that SPD depth/height figures are 'guidance only' when she is minded to accept a modest overshoot, naming the specific neighbouring extension depth as the comparator. Her refusals on principal-use matters (HMO conversion, industrial-site loss) work through the specific policy criteria in sequence (DM30 A, B, C) before reaching a conclusion.
· explicitly labels SPD numeric guidance (depth, height) as 'guidance only' when accepting a modest overshoot, naming the exact overshoot in metres
· compares a proposed extension's depth directly against a named neighbour's existing extension depth as the acceptability test
· on principle/use-class refusals, works through the specific lettered policy sub-criteria (DM30(A), DM30(B), DM30(C)) in sequence rather than a single combined judgement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact depth/height of a comparable neighbouring extension before treating an SPD overshoot as acceptable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which specific lettered sub-criterion of a use-class policy (e.g. DM30 A/B/C) a scheme fails
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a use is designated a Locally Significant Industrial Site even where not formally labelled as such on the policies map
“this document is guidance only”
PL/0256/23
“the LPA would consider this to be a LSIS in accordance with Policy E4”
PL/0273/24
Measured from 212 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 212 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 212 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.