Development Intent
AtlasHarrowOfficersChris Wentworth
Planning Atlas›Harrow›Chris Wentworth
Case officer · Harrow Planning

Chris Wentworth.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 48% across 40 decided planning applications, spanning 10 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer40 decisions48% approvalSave
Harrow · 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 →
40
Applications
2021–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%75%202455%20250%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate48% · 67th of 72
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 reports25 officer reports parsed
17%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
16%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
82%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Harrow's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Harrow reports. Attention, not stance.

Energy & sustainability
5.41× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
2.89× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
2.84× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.2× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.12× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

Assigned Chris Wentworth on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“The current planning application is a resubmission, with amendments, of a previously refused planning application, under planning reference PL/0124/24”

PL/1823/24

“The Planning Inspector in that recent appeal scheme stated in relation to the building fronting Elms Road”

PL/2606/24

Measured from 25 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 25 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D3
7 times cited
DM1Achieving a High Standard of Development
5 times cited
DM10On Site Water Management and Surface Water Attenuation
5 times cited
CS1.B
4 times cited
D12
3 times cited
D4
2 times cited
D6
2 times cited
D14
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
14
44%
5
80%
4
67%
3
67%
3
0%
3
0%
3
0%
2
0%
2
0%
1
–
14
44%
5
80%
4
67%
Show all 10 rows
3
67%
3
0%
3
0%
3
0%
2
0%
2
0%
1
–

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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
PL/2309/25
Householder
Refused
2026-06-01
PL/1503/25
Full Planning Application
Refused
2026-05-29
PL/2309/25
Householder
Refused
2026-06-01
PL/1503/25
Full Planning Application
Refused
2026-05-29
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 40 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Warner Planning
2. Multi Creation
3. Martin Evans Architects
4. NT Studio
At a glance
OfficerChris Wentworth
BoroughHarrow
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications40 (2021–26)
Approval rate48%
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 Harrow planning register and published decision notices, 2021–26. · 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 Harrow decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
  4. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 25 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.