Katie Parkins1.
Active — last recorded decision Jan 2026
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 69% across 70 decided planning applications, spanning 18 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×.
Parkins' reports on flat conversions and retrospective HMO/flat schemes tabulate proposed vs. approved drawings discrepancies explicitly (e.g. a dormer built differently to the approved floorplan), and her refusals name the exact GIA shortfall in square metres against the London Plan minimum for each affected unit rather than a general undersize statement. She frequently flags retrospective/as-built discrepancies against a prior permission as a discrete assessment step before judging the current scheme on its own merits.
· identifies specific discrepancies between as-built development and previously approved drawings (e.g. a dormer extending onto a flat roof not shown on the approved floorplan) as a discrete assessment step
· quantifies GIA shortfalls in exact square metres against the London Plan minimum for each individual undersized unit
· for retrospective applications, separately confirms the drainage works have already been completed on site before assessing whether new drainage conditions remain reasonable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact discrepancy between as-built development and the previously approved drawings, named specifically
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise square-metre GIA shortfall against the London Plan minimum for each individual unit, not a general undersize statement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether retrospective drainage works have already been completed on site before assessing whether new conditions would be reasonable under NPPF paragraph 57
“there was a discrepancy in the approved drawings. The applicant has built a rear dormer which extends across onto the flat roof of the rear outrigger”
PL/1132/24
“The proposed second floor flat would have a GIA of approximately 41sqm, 9sqm less than what is required by The London Plan (2021)”
P/0786/23
Measured from 23 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 23 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 18 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 23 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.