Brooke Storey-Vowles.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 60% across 714 decided planning applications, spanning 19 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×.
Storey-Vowles' reports are distinctive for citing named appeal decisions on the same site directly, including the Inspector's own reasoning quoted rather than paraphrased, and for GPDO roof-volume calculations expressed to two decimal places. Refusals name each adjoining property individually by number and describe its specific impact rather than a general amenity finding.
· quotes a named Inspector's own appeal reasoning on the same site verbatim before applying it to the current case
· sets out roof extension cubic-metre volumes to two decimal places with the multiplication shown in full
· addresses each adjoining property individually by house number when assessing amenity impact rather than a single blended neighbour finding
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a prior Inspector's appeal reasoning on the same site quoted directly, not just referenced by decision reference
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each adjoining property assessed individually by house number rather than folded into one general neighbour finding
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise multiplication behind a GPDO roof-volume calculation to two decimal places
“In justifying this decision, the Inspector stated that "The extension would be 3m deep although The Roe Green Village Conservation Area Design Guide says that single storey extensions to terraced properties should be no more than 2.5m deep. Nevertheless, although the proposed extension would be slightly deeper than this, it would have a flat parapet roof which would avoid the bulk of having a traditional pitched roof."”
20/0003
“The proposed two-storey side to rear extension, by reason of its design, bulk and close proximity to the boundary, coupled with the addition of a crown roof would create a disproportionately large addition and result in an incongruous and discordant feature that is out of keeping with the character of the dwellinghouse.”
20/0025
Measured from 650 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 650 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 19 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 650 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.