Development Intent
AtlasBrentOfficersCurtis Thompson
Planning Atlas›Brent›Curtis Thompson
Case officer · Brent Planning

Curtis Thompson.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 63% across 333 decided planning applications, spanning 18 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer333 decisions63% approvalSave
Brent · 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 →
333
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%56%202263%202357%202470%202565%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate63% · 33rd of 43
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 reports122 officer reports parsed
20%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
24%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
8%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
74%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Brent's average officer

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

Flooding & drainage
1.86× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
1.64× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.5× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.45× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.43× borough avg

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

Assigned Curtis Thompson 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

“While officers note that there is a shortfall of built-in storage space or flat 2 by 0.11 m�, however given that the GIA for this flat exceeds the required GIA by 1.3 m�, in this instance the shortfall is accepted.”

22/2268

“The subject proposal follows a previous similar proposal under the LPA reference `13/3737` which was refused planning permission for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development, by reason of its unsympathetic scale, proportions, elevational design and setting”

20/2691

Measured from 122 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 122 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

BD1Leading the Way in Good Urban Design
39 times cited
DMP1DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GENERAL
35 times cited
D6Housing Quality and Standards
30 times cited
T5Cycling
28 times cited
D12a
27 times cited
BSUI4ON-SITE WATER MANAGEMENT AND
25 times cited
D4Delivering Good Design
22 times cited
BGI1GREEN AND BLUE INFRASTRUCTURE IN BRENT
21 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
47
68%
44
73%
43
49%
41
65%
35
47%
33
47%
27
74%
24
74%
21
78%
4
50%
3
100%
3
67%
2
100%
1
100%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
47
68%
44
73%
43
49%
Show all 18 rows
41
65%
35
47%
33
47%
27
74%
24
74%
21
78%
4
50%
3
100%
3
67%
2
100%
1
100%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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
26/0594
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2026-06-02
26/0864
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-01
26/0594
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2026-06-02
26/0864
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-01
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 333 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Sterling Town Planning
2. Savills
3. XEVA DESIGN
4. Hybrid Planning & Development
At a glance
OfficerCurtis Thompson
BoroughBrent
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications333 (2020–26)
Approval rate63%
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 Brent planning register and published decision notices, 2020–26. · 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 — Brent's decision-notice parsing is limited coverage, so no borough or officer figure is shown.
  4. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 122 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.