Andrew Mortimer.
Last recorded decision Apr 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 75% across 310 decided planning applications, spanning 13 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 Brent reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Mortimer handles a high volume of standard SPD2 householder extensions and GPDO Certificates of Lawfulness, verifying roof-extension dimensions and volumes explicitly against source drawings ('Drawings have been measured and verified') and citing established, unauthorised precedent at named neighbouring addresses (dormers in place 11+ years) as a material consideration for streetscene acceptability.
· states explicitly that submitted drawing dimensions and volume calculations have been measured and verified rather than simply accepted
· treats long-standing unauthorised development at named neighbouring addresses as a material streetscene precedent, distinguishing it from a formal planning history
· checks whether new windows would need conditioned obscure glazing to maintain neighbour privacy before treating a design element as acceptable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: explicit confirmation that submitted drawing dimensions and calculated volumes have been measured and verified
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether similar unauthorised development already exists at named neighbouring addresses as a streetscene precedent
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed window needs an obscure-glazing condition to protect neighbour privacy
“Proposes a volume of 26.89 cubic metres [(6.16 * 3.78 *2.31) / 2 = 26.89] Drawings have been measured and verified”
20/0134
“It is noted that the neighbouring property 15 Aylestone Avenue has 2 side dormers in place, which have not been granted planning permission, but have been in place for at least 11 years.”
20/0163
Measured from 447 published Brent 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 447 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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 Brent planning register and published decision notices, 2020–22. · 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 — Brent's decision-notice parsing is limited coverage, so no borough or officer figure is shown.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 447 published Brent 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.