Jack Wride.
Recently active — last recorded decision Feb 2025
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 64% across 130 decided planning applications, spanning 20 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×.
Wride is a heritage/conservation-area specialist whose reports work through named individual architectural features (bargeboard, finial, gable end) as discrete loss-of-significance items rather than a single combined heritage harm statement, and he is unusually willing to reproduce Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy prose at length before applying it. His Certificate-of-Lawfulness assessments for ambiguous works (repair vs development) explicitly cite named High Court precedent cases by borough (Westminster 1995, Richmond 2000, RBKC 2017).
· itemises heritage loss as discrete named architectural features (bargeboard and finial detail, gable end, roof form) rather than a single combined harm statement
· reproduces Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy prose at length, in quotation marks, before applying it to the specific scheme
· on repair-vs-development boundary questions, cites named High Court precedent cases by borough and year (Westminster 1995, Richmond 2000, RBKC 2017) rather than a generic 'case law' reference
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each individual architectural feature at risk of loss (bargeboard, finial, gable end) named and assessed separately, not bundled into one heritage statement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific named High Court precedent case (by borough and year) governing whether works constitute 'development' under s.55
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact wording of the relevant Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy passage, quoted rather than paraphrased
“The loss of the east elevation gable end causing loss of some historic character and a good decorative detail (bargeboard and finial)”
PL/0113/23
“best practice has been built up through case law generated by a number of high profile High Court judgements for LPAs, such as Westminster (1995) Richmond (2000) and RBKC (2017)”
PL/0307/24
Measured from 110 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 110 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 20 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–25.[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, 2022–25. · 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 110 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.