Kim Pang.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 85% across 980 decided planning applications, spanning 14 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×.
Pang's householder reports work through SPD2 compliance one dimension at a time (depth, height, materials, neighbour-by-neighbour amenity) and are unusually willing to name the specific neighbouring address and planning history that sets the acceptable envelope for a case, rather than citing SPD2 in the abstract. On outbuilding Certificate of Lawfulness cases Pang assesses whether the applicant has actually evidenced the stated need for a structure of that size, rather than accepting a stated use at face value.
· tests whether an applicant has provided evidence that a building of the stated footprint is genuinely reasonably required, rather than accepting a stated incidental use unexamined
· names the specific neighbouring address and its own extension depth/history as the comparator that sets what is acceptable for the current proposal
· walks refusal cases to a single decisive design failure (e.g. bulk from a rear dormer) rather than stacking every minor SPD2 departure into the reasoning
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific extension depth/height already built at named neighbouring addresses, used as the direct comparator for acceptability
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the applicant has actually evidenced that an outbuilding of the proposed size is reasonably required, not just stated a use
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a single, clearly stated design failure driving a refusal rather than a list of minor departures
“The detached outbuilding proposed measures 3.45m wide, and is approx. 7.95m deep at its deepest point, resulting in a footprint of 26.7sqm.…In this instance, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the Council that a building of the size proposed (26.7sqm) is reasonably required.”
20/0444
“The proposed roof is considered to be out of keeping with the subject terrace and site as a whole. In addition to this, the submitted drawings include a number of elements which have not been included within the applicant’s description of development.”
20/0636
Measured from 755 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 755 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 rows
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.
- [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]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 755 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.