James Mascall.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 67% across 440 decided planning applications, spanning 19 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×.
Mascall's Certificate of Lawfulness reports set out hip-to-gable and dormer roof volumes with the multiplication shown explicitly and answer the full GPDO question set even where most answers are 'N'. Reports involving heritage assets check Historic England/Archaeological Priority Area status directly and track conservation-officer amendment correspondence with specific dates.
· shows the multiplication behind hip-to-gable and dormer roof volumes explicitly, then sums them against the 40/50 cubic metre GPDO limit
· checks Historic England consultation and Archaeological Priority Area status directly for heritage-adjacent sites rather than assuming no archaeological interest
· tracks the specific dates of conservation-officer comment and applicant amendment exchanges through an application
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the explicit multiplication behind hip-to-gable and dormer volumes before they are summed against the GPDO limit
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether Historic England or an Archaeological Priority Area designation applies before ruling out archaeological harm
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific dates of conservation officer comment and applicant amendment exchanges
“Historic England were consulted during the course of the application and did not request any additional information.”
21/2379
“Depth: 8.27m Width: 4.28m Height: 3.22m Total increase: 8.27m x 4.28m x 3.22m / 6 = 19 cubic metres”
21/2221
Measured from 506 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 506 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 19 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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, 2021–26. · 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 506 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.