Development Intent
AtlasBrentOfficersDwayne Clarke
Planning Atlas›Brent›Dwayne Clarke
Case officer · Brent Planning

Dwayne Clarke.

Last recorded decision Jan 2022 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 66% across 171 decided planning applications, spanning 11 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer171 decisions66% 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 →
171
Applications
2020–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%66%202063%202184%2022
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate66% · 27th 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 reports296 officer reports parsed
9%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
3%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
3%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
38%
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.

Trees & landscape
1.24× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.12× borough avg
Materials & detailing
0.91× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
0.76× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
0.67× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Clarke's reports frequently use capitalised parenthetical numerals for quantities (e.g. "TWO (2) roof-lights") and consistently frame acceptable extensions by the mitigating relationship to a specific neighbouring boundary or existing structure, rather than a blanket SPD2 compliance statement. Front-garden crossover refusals are grounded in the exact soft/hard landscaping ratio achieved versus the 50/50 requirement.

Observable habits

· uses capitalised parenthetical numerals for quantities of features (e.g. "TWO (2) roof-lights")

· grounds acceptability of a non-compliant depth or height in a specific, named mitigating factor (a shared access, an existing boundary structure) rather than a blanket compliance statement

· states the exact achieved soft/hard landscaping percentage against the 50/50 requirement when assessing front garden crossovers

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific, named mitigating factor (shared access arrangement, existing boundary structure) that makes an otherwise non-compliant depth or height acceptable

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact achieved soft/hard landscaping percentage measured against the 50/50 requirement for front garden crossovers

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a roof lantern or dormer is set back far enough from the front of the property to be visually minimal from the street

Assigned Dwayne Clarke 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

“To the rear of the garage, the existing side extension would feature TWO (2) roof-lights within the roof.”

20/0038

“Although the proposal extends more than 3m from the original rear elevation, the impact of the extension is mitigated by the shared access to No. 497, meaning there would be a 1m gap maintained to the reat elevation of the adjoining property.”

20/0006

Measured from 296 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 296 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMP 1
31 times cited
CP17
20 times cited
DMP1DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GENERAL
14 times cited
CP 17
10 times cited
BD1Leading the Way in Good Urban Design
10 times cited
D12a
9 times cited
BSUI4ON-SITE WATER MANAGEMENT AND
8 times cited
BGI1GREEN AND BLUE INFRASTRUCTURE IN BRENT
8 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
30
69%
25
76%
19
74%
18
78%
18
78%
16
44%
12
50%
11
73%
9
38%
8
63%
5
40%
30
69%
25
76%
19
74%
Show all 11 rows
18
78%
18
78%
16
44%
12
50%
11
73%
9
38%
8
63%
5
40%

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
21/3325
Householder
Approved
2022-04-11
21/3841
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2022-04-04
21/3325
Householder
Approved
2022-04-11
21/3841
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2022-04-04
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 171 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. KDB BUILDING DESIGNS LTD
2. Construct 360 Ltd T/A DontMoveExtend.com
3. sarsi shah
4. Pankhaniya Services Ltd
At a glance
OfficerDwayne Clarke
BoroughBrent
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications171 (2020–22)
Approval rate66%
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, 2020–22. · 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 296 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.