Lee Connor.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 78% across 643 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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×.
Connor's reports cover a wide mix of householder extensions, telecoms prior approvals and heritage-sensitive conservation area work, and his prose repeatedly leans on citing prior planning history on the same site (often the exact application reference and what changed) to justify or distinguish the current scheme. On refusals he sets the harm out in a single dense character-and-appearance paragraph naming the specific roof form or massing at fault; on grants he is comfortable citing appeal decisions and Conservation Area Appraisal wording verbatim to support a design conclusion.
· cites the exact prior application reference and what dimension changed between it and the current scheme ('Revisions to Previous Application P/2280/23 - The projection of the proposed rear extension has been reduced by 0.3m')
· quotes Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy text directly rather than paraphrasing it
· names the specific policy code alongside the exact numeric non-compliance (e.g. depth in metres beyond SPD guidance) in both grant and refuse reports
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact wording of the relevant Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy passage before applying it to the specific scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: what changed, in metres, between a previously refused/approved scheme on the same site and the current resubmission
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a telecoms installation's highway footway width leaves sufficient space for road users to pass safely
“It is considered that the proposal is contrived and would have a significant harmful impact on the host properties”
PL/0337/23
“As such, the impact to No.6 from the two storey extension is considered acceptable”
PL/0337/23
Measured from 575 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 575 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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, 2022–26. · 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 575 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.