Amy Jenner.
Active — last recorded decision Nov 2024
A case officer at Bromley with an approval rate of 33% across 3 decided planning applications, spanning 2 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.
Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Bromley reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Jenner's caseload leans toward outbuildings and ancillary structures, where she consistently ties her design conclusion to the specific physical description of the structure (roof form, height to a decimal metre, cladding, fenestration) and separately, explicitly conditions any acceptance of a large outbuilding on it remaining incidental to the main dwelling rather than capable of independent residential use — treating the incidental-use condition as a necessary safeguard rather than an afterthought.
· describes an outbuilding's physical form (roof type, height to a decimal metre, external cladding/materials) in specific detail before reaching a design conclusion, rather than a general 'appropriate scale' statement
· explicitly flags where a large outbuilding has the potential for independent/self-contained use and imposes an incidental-use condition as a deliberate safeguard rather than a standard boilerplate condition
· on resubmissions, opens with the specific dimensional/design changes from the previous scheme before assessing the current proposal
· the outbuilding's precise physical form — roof type, height to a decimal metre, cladding/materials — before any design conclusion
· whether a large outbuilding has genuine potential for independent/self-contained residential use requiring an explicit incidental-use condition
· the specific dimensional or design changes a resubmission has made from its immediately preceding version
“The outbuilding has a flat roof to a maximum height of 2.69m and has been clad externally”
25/01856/FULL6
“it is considered prudent to impose a condition to ensure that the outbuilding remains incidental to the host dwelling as stated within this application”
25/01856/FULL6
Measured from 42 published Bromley 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 42 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.
No named planning consultants on this officer's decided applications.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Bromley planning register and published decision notices, 2024. · 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 — mean effective conditions attached to Bromley decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 42 published Bromley 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.