Harry Moorhouse.
Last recorded decision Jan 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Barking And Dagenham with an approval rate of 61% across 126 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 Barking And Dagenham reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Moorhouse's caseload is dominated by householder extensions, and he is distinctive for explicitly tracking a site's history of PRIOR REFUSALS for the same or a similar scheme — naming the exact application references and the exact reason-for-refusal wording used previously — and then assessing whether the current resubmission has addressed that specific reason, rather than reassessing the scheme from scratch. He is also careful to flag where a permitted-development consent (e.g. a prior-approval extension) has NOT yet been implemented, treating the unbuilt permitted scheme as the correct baseline for assessing a new full-application variant on the same footprint.
· names the exact application references and exact reason-for-refusal wording from prior refused applications on the same site, then explicitly assesses whether the current resubmission addresses that SPECIFIC prior reason rather than reassessing from scratch
· treats an unbuilt but valid permitted-development consent (e.g. a prior-approval extension not yet constructed) as the correct comparison baseline for a new full-application variant on the same footprint, rather than the as-built current state
· flags a live, pending related application on the same site as a material consideration that could change the basis of a current Certificate of Lawfulness assessment
· the exact application reference and exact wording of any prior refusal reason for a similar scheme on the same site, and whether the current resubmission specifically addresses it
· whether a previously granted but unbuilt permitted-development consent (e.g. prior-approval extension) forms the correct baseline for comparing a new full-application proposal
· whether a live, pending related application on the same site would materially change the currency of the assessment being made
“The proposed garage by virtue of its design, scale and siting results in an unacceptable form of development that is unduly prominent in relation to the existing dwelling and out of character with the surrounding area”
20/01165/HSE
“Officer recognise that application 20/01170/HSE is pending consideration. the applicant should be aware that the assessment undertaken herein is based on the date this certificate application was submitted”
20/01159/CLUP
Measured from 199 published Barking And Dagenham 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 199 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 18 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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 Barking And Dagenham planning register and published decision notices, 2020–21. · 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 Barking And Dagenham 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 199 published Barking And Dagenham 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.