Policy.
The policies that actually decide outcomes in Havering — how often each is cited in the officers' own reports, where it bites hardest, and who leans on it. The plan text is the rule; this is the behaviour.
Grounds classified from each policy's own cited title. Click a slice — reshapes the map.
Every plan policy recurring in Havering officer reports, ranked by how often it's cited. Click a policy for its full record — and the officer who leans on it most.
Citation counts from Havering officer reports.[1] “In refusals” = share of a policy's citations that sit on refusals; × = that share against the borough average (needs 20+ citations). Appeal survival = of PINS appeal decisions citing the policy, the share dismissed (refusal held); a rate needs 5+ decisive appeals, fewer show the count. Methodology →
The development-plan documents Havering officers actually cite, counted across parsed reports. CIL and land-supply figures aren't sourced yet and are shown as pending, not estimated.
Bar = volume · figure = approval rate, across Havering's substantive decisions.
Why the planning committee refuses applications, from 16 refusals in the loaded minutes. Committee refusals are relatively few — most decisions are settled by officers.
Havering's decision-notice parsing doesn't have enough high-confidence coverage yet to publish a borough-wide refusal-citation breakdown.
- [1]Policy citations, per-policy officer counts and ward citation counts — parsed from 359 published Havering officer reports (delegated and committee), joined to the canonical application record for wards. Approvals included — refusal notices alone only show the refusal side.
- [2]Approval rate by application type — Havering's substantive decision record. · methodology
- [3]Committee refusal grounds and committee-cited policies — published Havering planning-committee minutes. · committee record
- [4]Borough-wide refusal-notice policy citations — decision-notice parsing (high-confidence notices only).