Development Intent
AtlasHillingdonOfficersNatasha Vernal
Planning Atlas›Hillingdon›Natasha Vernal
Case officer · Hillingdon Planning

Natasha Vernal.

Last recorded decision Sep 2023 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Hillingdon with an approval rate of 70% across 107 decided planning applications, spanning 22 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer107 decisions70% approvalSave
Hillingdon · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
107
Applications
2022–23
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%71%202350%2024
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate70% · 46th of 59
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports

Not filled in yet — this needs at least 20 of Natasha Vernal's own officer reports parsed, and their reports haven't reached that threshold in the parsing run. It fills automatically as parsing progresses; nothing is estimated in its place.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies cited most on decision notices for applications Natasha Vernal decided — 41 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

DMHB11Design of New DevelopmentHillingdon plan
20 times cited
DMHB14Trees and LandscapingHillingdon plan
10 times cited
NPPFNPPF
10 times cited
DMEI1Living Walls and Roofs and on-site VegetationHillingdon plan
9 times cited
D7London Plan
9 times cited
DMT2Highways ImpactsHillingdon plan
8 times cited
DMT6Vehicle ParkingHillingdon plan
7 times cited
SI2London Plan
7 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
11
50%
10
67%
9
100%
8
43%
7
83%
7
71%
7
67%
7
86%
6
50%
5
60%
4
75%
4
100%
3
67%
3
33%
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
2
50%
2
50%
1
100%
1
0%
1
100%
11
50%
10
67%
9
100%
Show all 22 rows
8
43%
7
83%
7
71%
7
67%
7
86%
6
50%
5
60%
4
75%
4
100%
3
67%
3
33%
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
2
50%
2
50%
1
100%
1
0%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–23.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
17969/APP/2023/1014
Planning Application
Refused
2024-02-15
77634/APP/2023/2012
Planning Application
Approved
2024-01-19
17969/APP/2023/1014
Planning Application
Refused
2024-02-15
77634/APP/2023/2012
Planning Application
Approved
2024-01-19
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 107 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Mr Kamal Panesar The Studio
2. Barker Parry Town Planning Ltd
3. Mr Satha Palan Studio
4. - SMART SKILLS LTD OFFICE-19
At a glance
OfficerNatasha Vernal
BoroughHillingdon
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications107 (2022–23)
Approval rate70%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Hillingdon planning register and published decision notices, 2022–23. · methodology
  2. [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. [3]Condition load — mean effective conditions attached to Hillingdon decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
  4. [4]Policy citations will be coded from officer reports against the adopted Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF — that parsing has not run for this borough yet.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.