Development Intent
AtlasBarking and DagenhamOfficersKate Brooks
Planning Atlas›Barking And Dagenham›Kate Brooks
Case officer · Barking And Dagenham Planning

Kate Brooks.

Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026

A case officer at Barking And Dagenham with an approval rate of 61% across 237 decided planning applications, spanning 20 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer237 decisions61% approvalSave
Barking And Dagenham · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
237
Applications
2023–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%69%202460%202550%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate61% · 18th of 29
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports89 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
33%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
65%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Barking And Dagenham's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Barking And Dagenham reports. Attention, not stance.

Noise & disturbance
1.57× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.36× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.32× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.23× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.2× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

Assigned Kate Brooks on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“In assessing whether applications directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset”

24/00770/HSE

“The extension may cause minimal loss of light/outlook to Number 11, however, it is considered to be minor and not found to constitute any undue harm”

24/00770/HSE

Measured from 89 published Barking And Dagenham 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 89 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4
16 times cited
D14
16 times cited
T5
15 times cited
T6
15 times cited
D6housing q ua lit y a nd st a nd a rd s, a nd / or it s relev a nt
14 times cited
H1
14 times cited
T7
9 times cited
T6.1
9 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
31
67%
24
52%
17
71%
16
50%
16
73%
16
69%
15
67%
13
69%
13
54%
13
46%
10
80%
10
60%
9
78%
8
38%
6
60%
6
50%
5
20%
5
60%
3
67%
1
100%
31
67%
24
52%
17
71%
Show all 20 rows
16
50%
16
73%
16
69%
15
67%
13
69%
13
54%
13
46%
10
80%
10
60%
9
78%
8
38%
6
60%
6
50%
5
20%
5
60%
3
67%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
26/00325/FULL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-05-28
26/00387/HSE
Householder Planning Permission
Withdrawn
2026-05-26
26/00325/FULL
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-05-28
26/00387/HSE
Householder Planning Permission
Withdrawn
2026-05-26
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 237 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Livarch Ltd
2. ARKS DESIGN STUDIO LIMITED
3. Mr Simon Dossery (SD Designs (UK) Ltd)
4. Humphreys & Sons - Architecture & Surveyors
At a glance
OfficerKate Brooks
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications237 (2023–26)
Approval rate61%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Barking And Dagenham planning register and published decision notices, 2023–26. · methodology
  2. [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. [3]Condition load — mean effective conditions attached to Barking And Dagenham decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
  4. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 89 published Barking And Dagenham 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.