Development Intent
AtlasBrentOfficersDenis Toomey
Planning Atlas›Brent›Denis Toomey
Case officer · Brent Planning

Denis Toomey.

Last recorded decision Jan 2023 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 60% across 135 decided planning applications, spanning 16 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer135 decisions60% 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 →
135
Applications
2020–23
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%52%202056%202160%202289%2023
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate60% · 36th 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 reports140 officer reports parsed
24%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
32%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
7%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
76%
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.

Energy & sustainability
5.6× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
1.92× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.34× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.29× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.26× borough avg

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

Assigned Denis Toomey 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

“This proposal was refused for the following reason: The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the loss of the existing community facility is acceptable.”

20/0118

“There are currently about 460 customer parking spaces within the store, so the loss of 46 spaces would…still leave over 400 spaces for customers, which remains far in excess of maximum standards.”

20/0118

Measured from 140 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 140 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMP1DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GENERAL
24 times cited
BD1Leading the Way in Good Urban Design
16 times cited
D6Housing Quality and Standards
13 times cited
BSUI4ON-SITE WATER MANAGEMENT AND
13 times cited
DMP 1
12 times cited
D2Infrastructure Requirements for Sustainable Densities
12 times cited
BT2PARKING AND CAR FREE DEVELOPMENT WHICH ARE
10 times cited
BH13New dwellings external private amenity space requirement
10 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
20
75%
20
58%
18
47%
13
69%
12
64%
10
67%
10
67%
7
14%
7
43%
5
50%
4
75%
3
100%
2
100%
2
0%
1
100%
1
–
20
75%
20
58%
18
47%
Show all 16 rows
13
69%
12
64%
10
67%
10
67%
7
14%
7
43%
5
50%
4
75%
3
100%
2
100%
2
0%
1
100%
1
–

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[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
22/4335
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2023-04-06
23/0065
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2023-03-06
22/4335
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2023-04-06
23/0065
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2023-03-06
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 135 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Studio 136 Architects Ltd
2. KDB BUILDING DESIGNS LTD
3. SAI ARCHITECTS AND ASSOCIATES
4. Richard Edwards Associates
At a glance
OfficerDenis Toomey
BoroughBrent
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications135 (2020–23)
Approval rate60%
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, 2020–23. · 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 140 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.