John Lo.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 82% across 28 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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×.
Lo's corpus is overwhelmingly Certificate of Lawful Development applications under GPDO Classes A, B and E, worked through the statutory limitation clauses in strict lettered order with an explicit Yes/No/N/A answer against each before any narrative commentary. He is notably precise about internal inconsistency between submitted drawings (block plan vs floor plan) as a standalone ground for concluding a scheme falls outside the permitted development curtilage test.
· works through GPDO Class limitation clauses in strict lettered order (a, b, c, d...) with an explicit Yes/No/N/A answer against each before any narrative
· flags internal inconsistency between different submitted drawing types (block plan vs floor plan) as a standalone basis for finding non-compliance
· for Article 4 Direction sites, quotes the specific wording of the Direction ('where development fronts a highway, waterway or open space') verbatim before applying it
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an explicit Yes/No/N/A answer against every individual lettered GPDO limitation clause before any narrative discussion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the submitted block plan and floor plan agree on the exact siting of the development within the curtilage boundary
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise wording of an Article 4 Direction before applying it to a specific site
“the application contains inconsistent and conflicting information in relation to the site boundaries and the siting of the proposed development within it”
PL/3192/25
“where development fronts a highway, waterway or open space”
PL/2846/25
Measured from 65 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 65 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[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, 2025–26. · 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 65 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.