Lauren Brown.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 87% across 800 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×.
Brown's Certificate of Lawfulness reports work through GPDO Class A/B tests clause-by-clause with the cubic-metre roof volume calculation shown as an explicit multiplication, and her conservation-area/heritage reports are unusual in citing case law directly (the Barnwell Manor Court of Appeal decision on the weight due to harm) rather than only citing policy. Refusals name the specific policies breached (DMP1, CP17, BT2, BE5) rather than a general design objection.
· shows the roof-extension volume calculation as an explicit multiplication [(H x W x D)/2 or /6] rather than stating only the resulting cubic-metre figure
· cites case law directly on heritage harm (e.g. the Barnwell Manor Court of Appeal test of "considerable importance and weight") before applying it to the specific conservation area
· closes refusals by listing each individual policy code breached rather than a single general design objection
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the explicit multiplication behind a roof extension's cubic-metre volume, not just the resulting total
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific case law test for heritage harm (e.g. Barnwell Manor) applied to the conservation area in question
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: every individual policy code breached listed at the point of refusal, not a single general design objection
“the decision in Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East…Northamptonshire District Council [2014] EWCA Civ 137 confirmed that where an authority finds that a development proposal would harm the setting of a listed building or the character and appearance of a conservation area, it must give that harm "considerable importance and weight".”
20/0365
“As such the development would be contrary to policies Brent DMP1, CP17 and SPD2 Residential Extensions and Alterations (2018) Recommended for Refusal.”
20/0065
Measured from 683 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 683 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 683 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.