Mahya Fatemi.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 63% across 558 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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×.
Fatemi's reports express outbuilding and extension size as a direct percentage of the garden or original footprint (e.g. an outbuilding stated as 27% of the size of the existing rear garden) and cross-reference the exact SPD2 sqm thresholds for different garden sizes rather than a single blanket figure. HMO and conversion cases set out unit floor areas against the London Plan minimum in a short comparison rather than a full space-standard table.
· states outbuilding or extension size as a direct percentage of the garden or original dwelling footprint
· cites SPD2's tiered outbuilding thresholds (e.g. 20sqm for gardens under 100sqm, 30sqm for gardens over 100sqm) by name rather than a single blanket figure
· flags where a proposed outbuilding use (toilet, kitchenette) tips it from "incidental" into non-compliant primary accommodation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: outbuilding or extension footprint expressed as a direct percentage of the garden or original dwelling area, not just an absolute sqm figure
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which SPD2 garden-size tier (under/over 100sqm) applies before citing the corresponding outbuilding size limit
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an outbuilding's internal facilities (toilet, kitchenette) push it beyond genuinely incidental use
“Note that Brent’s SPD 2 design guide allows an outbuilding of 30sqm for rear gardens of more than 100 sqm. Moreover, the extra 1.74 sqm is considered not to be significant increase given the garden size and is acceptable.”
20/0121
“The floorplans show the outbuilding is proposed to be used as a Storage and gym however, as explained within SPD2 an `incidental’ use should not include any forms of primary accommodation including bathrooms and toilets. The proposal includes a toilet and is therefore contrary to the guidance and cannot be supported.”
20/0576
Measured from 603 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 603 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 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 603 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.