Ryan Gallagher.
Last recorded decision Sep 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 77% across 220 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×.
Gallagher's reasoning is organised by extension element (front, side, rear, roof) each addressed as its own mini-conclusion, and his refusals typically isolate ONE specific element as the cause of harm while explicitly clearing the others individually rather than refusing the scheme wholesale. He frequently references the Council's 45-degree code numerically, including minor/marginal breaches which he explains away as acceptable 'on balance'.
· addresses each extension element (front porch, side extension, rear extension, roof alterations) as its own separate mini-verdict rather than one combined paragraph
· quantifies 45-degree code breaches in metres even when minor, explicitly labelling them 'minor breach... considered acceptable on balance' rather than silently passing over them
· in refusals, isolates the single harmful element while explicitly stating the other elements of the same scheme are acceptable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise metric extent of any 45-degree code breach, even a minor one, rather than a binary pass/fail
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether each individual element of a multi-part extension can be separately justified rather than assessing the scheme as one whole
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether flank windows are conditioned obscure-glazed and non-opening below 1.7m
“the minor breach is considered acceptable on balance”
PL/0042/23
“the gabling of both roof ends and creation of a crown would be highly prominent in the streetscene”
PL/0107/23
Measured from 284 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 284 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 15 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–24.[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, 2021–24. · 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 284 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.