Development Intent
AtlasBrentOfficersLeah Wright
Planning Atlas›Brent›Leah Wright
Case officer · Brent Planning

Leah Wright.

Last recorded decision Jan 2021 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 81% across 112 decided planning applications, spanning 12 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer112 decisions81% 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 →
112
Applications
2020–21
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%80%202085%2021
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate81% · 11th 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 reports128 officer reports parsed
6%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
3%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"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.

Noise & disturbance
2.24× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.29× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.2× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.14× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.96× borough avg

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

Assigned Leah Wright 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

“The inspector sited that the over concentration of takeaways would cause harm by failing to support the health and well-being of the local population, contrary to Policy DMP3 of the Brent LP.”

20/0225

“The Canal and River Trust had multiple issues which are summarised as follows: a) The physical impact of the proposed extension on the structural integrity of the Grand Union Canal and its towpath”

20/0213

Measured from 128 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 128 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMP1DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GENERAL
20 times cited
CP17
16 times cited
BD1Leading the Way in Good Urban Design
15 times cited
SPD1Brent Design Guide
15 times cited
7.4
5 times cited
7.6
5 times cited
DMP14
4 times cited
3.5
4 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
20/1180
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2021-04-29
20/2091
Householder
Approved
2021-03-16
20/1180
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2021-04-29
20/2091
Householder
Approved
2021-03-16
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 112 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. QPAD
2. Oceanlink Construct Ltd
3. Truekiffin & Co
4. Frankham Consultancy Group
At a glance
OfficerLeah Wright
BoroughBrent
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications112 (2020–21)
Approval rate81%
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, 2020–21. · 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 128 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.