Development Intent
AtlasBrentOfficersSabrina Mohammed
Planning Atlas›Brent›Sabrina Mohammed
Case officer · Brent Planning

Sabrina Mohammed.

Last recorded decision Jul 2022 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 52% across 307 decided planning applications, spanning 16 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer307 decisions52% 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 →
307
Applications
2020–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%57%202051%202151%2022
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate52% · 41st 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 reports496 officer reports parsed
16%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
3%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
1%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
54%
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.

Materials & detailing
1.33× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.22× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.2× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
0.91× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
0.85× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Mohammed's reports quote Conservation Officer comments directly rather than summarising them, and her Certificate of Lawfulness assessments walk the GPDO question-by-question format methodically, including intermediate 'N/A' answers. Outbuilding cases state the size as a percentage of the host dwelling's own footprint as well as the garden.

Observable habits

· quotes the Conservation Officer’s own written comment verbatim rather than paraphrasing their view

· states outbuilding size both as a percentage of the garden and as a percentage of the original dwelling’s footprint

· walks the full GPDO question set in order for Certificate of Lawfulness cases, including intermediate N/A answers, rather than skipping to the determinative question

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the Conservation Officer's own comment quoted directly rather than summarised

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: outbuilding size expressed against both the garden area and the original dwelling's own footprint

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: every GPDO question answered in sequence, including the N/A ones, rather than jumping to the determinative test

Assigned Sabrina Mohammed 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

“Conservation Officer Comments: 'The proposals are acceptable The proposed windows have been designed to replicate the existing windows in design, location and section. They are an improvement on the previous installations and have been designed to embrace the original design by Ernest Trobridge.”

20/0667

“Therefore the outbuilding proposed is 38% of the size of the original dwellinghouse on site.”

20/0768

Measured from 496 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 496 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMP1DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GENERAL
80 times cited
BD1Leading the Way in Good Urban Design
66 times cited
D12a
56 times cited
BSUI4ON-SITE WATER MANAGEMENT AND
55 times cited
BGI1GREEN AND BLUE INFRASTRUCTURE IN BRENT
53 times cited
BHC1BRENT’S HERITAGE ASSETS
41 times cited
DMP12
15 times cited
D6Housing Quality and Standards
15 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
53
54%
47
54%
43
63%
25
50%
24
71%
23
52%
22
50%
21
29%
19
37%
15
27%
4
75%
4
67%
3
67%
2
50%
1
100%
1
0%
53
54%
47
54%
43
63%
Show all 16 rows
25
50%
24
71%
23
52%
22
50%
21
29%
19
37%
15
27%
4
75%
4
67%
3
67%
2
50%
1
100%
1
0%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
22/2060
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2022-09-09
22/0044
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2022-08-23
22/2060
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2022-09-09
22/0044
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2022-08-23
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 307 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Studio 136 Architects Ltd
2. Construct 360 Ltd T/A DontMoveExtend.com
3. KDB BUILDING DESIGNS LTD
4. AC Design Solutions Ltd
At a glance
OfficerSabrina Mohammed
BoroughBrent
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications307 (2020–22)
Approval rate52%
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, 2020–22. · 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 496 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.