Tim Matthews.
Last recorded decision Sep 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Harrow with an approval rate of 62% across 36 decided planning applications, spanning 17 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.
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×.
Matthews' reports are structurally distinct from the rest of the corpus: they reproduce named consultee comments verbatim (Conservation Officer, Infrastructure Officer, Harrow Hill Trust, CAAC) as discrete quoted blocks rather than paraphrasing consultee input, and his recommendation line is a distinctive 'On balance, Officers are satisfied...' formula rather than the standard GRANT/REFUSE wording used elsewhere in the corpus. He is one of the only officers whose reports systematically cite the specific Conservation Area Advisory Committee meeting date for objections raised.
· reproduces named consultee comments (Conservation Officer, Infrastructure Officer, Harrow Hill Trust, CAAC) as discrete labelled quoted blocks rather than paraphrasing them into officer prose
· uses a distinctive recommendation formula ('On balance, Officers are satisfied with the outcomes of the proposal') rather than the borough's standard GRANT/REFUSE header wording
· cites the specific meeting date of the Conservation Area Advisory Committee when it raised an objection or comment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact wording of named consultee (Conservation Officer, Harrow Hill Trust) comments, reproduced rather than summarised
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific meeting date on which the Conservation Area Advisory Committee considered the scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a rear dormer's design profile matches the main roof pitch as raised by conservation consultees
“This view remains the same. Currently the proposal would create a bulky and dominant addition here given the additional width, combined with the additional height”
PL/0809/25
“The two front rooflights should either be omitted or reduced to one in number so as not to be more than is next door”
PL/1367/25
Measured from 88 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 88 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–24.[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, 2023–24. · 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 88 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.