Luke Boadle.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 93% across 99 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×.
Boadle's amenity paragraphs are distinctive for naming specific comparator properties by address ('e.g. 71 Yeading Avenue and 83 Yeading Avenue') when justifying a numerically non-compliant outbuilding or extension, and he is explicit about labelling a variation as 'very minor' or 'minor and justifiable' when accepting small numerical breaches, rather than presenting the breach as fully compliant. His drainage paragraphs consistently reproduce the Council's Drainage & Infrastructure Officer's own comment text as a discrete quoted block.
· names specific comparator properties by street address when justifying a numerically non-compliant scheme, rather than a generic 'similar examples exist' statement
· explicitly labels small numerical breaches as 'very minor' or 'minor and justifiable' rather than silently treating them as compliant
· reproduces the Drainage & Infrastructure Officer's consultee comment as its own discrete quoted block before reaching a drainage conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific named comparator property address with a similar-scale non-compliant feature, not a generic precedent claim
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a numerical breach is 'very minor'/'minor and justifiable' in scale, explicitly labelled as such rather than glossed over
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the Drainage & Infrastructure Officer's own quoted assessment of a Flood Risk Assessment before reaching a drainage conclusion
“there are multiple examples of similarly sized detached outbuildings in the rear yards of dwellings in the vicinity of the subject site (e.g. 71 Yeading Avenue and 83 Yeading Avenue)”
PL/1073/25
“Whilst non-compliant with this numerical control, the noncompliance is considered very minor”
PL/1493/25
Measured from 130 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 130 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 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 130 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.