Luke McBratney.
Last recorded decision Jun 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 56% across 128 decided planning applications, spanning 12 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×.
McBratney's reports lean into the borough's checklist pro-forma with an explicit YES/NO answer against every numbered criterion, but distinctively adds a short justification sentence directly after each 'Is the proposal acceptable?' line rather than deferring justification to a separate paragraph. His HMO/flat-conversion refusals work through Policy H8 (loss of housing) as a first-principles test before any design assessment.
· answers 'Is the proposal acceptable?' immediately after each individual checklist criterion with its own short justification sentence, rather than one combined justification at the end
· on nursery/community-facility use changes, tests compliance with Policy H8 (loss of existing housing) as the FIRST test before any design or amenity assessment
· assesses vertical stacking and noise transference between flats as its own distinct sub-topic separate from general residential amenity
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether Policy H8's loss-of-housing test is satisfied FIRST, before any design or amenity assessment of a change of use
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific justification sentence attached to each individual checklist criterion, not a single combined paragraph
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether noise transference mitigation measures have been demonstrated between vertically stacked flats
“the existing change of use of the ground and part first floor to a nursery fails to comply with Policy H8 of the London Plan in this regard. This is afforded substantial weight”
PL/0171/23
“the applicant has failed to demonstrate mitigation measures to reduce the noise transference between the living accomodation of flat B”
PL/0335/23
Measured from 63 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 63 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 12 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–24.[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, 2022–24. · 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 63 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.