Lucy Haile.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 96% across 157 decided planning applications, spanning 15 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×.
Haile is Harrow's Listed Building Consent specialist: every report in her corpus concerns internal or external alterations to a listed building, and her reasoning is anchored to whether historic fabric is retained ('the historic door... by relocating it to the new opening') rather than the external planning merits of a scheme. She distinctively separates internal works room-by-room (Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor) each with its own significance conclusion, rather than a single combined heritage statement.
· structures Listed Building Consent reports by physical location within the building (Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor, Reception) each with its own retained-fabric conclusion, rather than one combined heritage statement
· explicitly tracks whether specific historic fabric (a door, a wall, timber beams) is retained, relocated, or lost, naming the exact element each time
· for works already undertaken unlawfully, distinguishes which elements 'nevertheless preserve the special interest' from which 'harmed special interest', assessing each element separately for retrospective consent
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a specific named historic element (a door, a wall, a beam) is retained, relocated, or lost as a result of the works, assessed individually
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a discrete significance conclusion for each physical location within the building (ground floor, first floor, second floor) rather than one whole-building statement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: for retrospective consent, which already-completed elements preserved special interest versus which caused harm requiring reversal
“It is also proposed to retain the historic door which does remain within the part of the wall to be removed, by relocating it to the new opening into the new rear extension”
PL/0438/23
“Some works have already been undertaken unlawfully which nevertheless preserve the special interest of the listed building, whereas others have harmed special interest”
PL/1561/25
Measured from 38 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 across their decisions — how often each appears, and whether refusals citing it survive appeal.
In development — policy citations are coded from officer reports, and that parsing hasn't run for Harrow yet. Nothing is shown until it is real.
Show all 15 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 38 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.