Germaine Asabere.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 67% across 171 decided planning applications, spanning 21 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×.
Asabere's reports use a distinctive 'MAIN PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS' numbered-prose structure (rather than the borough's checklist pro-forma) and consistently open with a Principle of Development paragraph even for minor householder schemes, before moving to Design impact assessed under the specific rubric 'Design impact (Layout, Height, Massing and Materials)'. Her heritage assessments name the specific Conservation Area's founding character narrative (e.g. Metroland origins) before applying it to the scheme.
· structures reports under the heading 'MAIN PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS' with a distinct 'Design impact (Layout, Height, Massing and Materials)' rubric rather than the generic 'Character and Appearance' heading most colleagues use
· opens even minor householder schemes with a short Principle of Development paragraph before design assessment
· grounds conservation area heritage judgements in the area's specific founding historical narrative (e.g. Metroland development origins) rather than generic character language
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the area's specific founding historical narrative (Metroland origins, prototype status) before applying a heritage judgement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a first-floor extension is set back from the principal front elevation to create a staggered appearance and avoid a terracing effect
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: defensible garden space provided in front of ground floor windows per the SPD paragraph reference
“It will be set back from the principal front elevation giving a staggered appearance in continuation of the existing design”
PL/1264/24
“along with Wembley Park, Cecil Park formed the first of England's Metroland”
PL/1366/24
Measured from 159 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 159 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[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, 2023–26. · 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 159 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.