Colin Leadbeatter.
Recently active — last recorded decision Feb 2025
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 88% across 8 decided planning applications, spanning 4 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×.
Leadbeatter's reports on major/extant-consent applications carefully catalogue the specific differences between a resubmission and its extant consent (bullet-pointed), giving that extant consent great material weight, and his Article 4 Direction reports for front garden parking flag the specific policy sections of the Crossover Policy breached by number.
· bullets the specific differences between a resubmission and its extant consent before assessing them individually
· treats an extant consent as a material consideration of "great weight" once established, rather than starting the assessment afresh
· cites specific numbered sections of the Crossover Policy (e.g. section 10, section 22) breached by a scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific, bulleted differences between a resubmission and its extant consent
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an extant consent should be given great material weight before reassessing a scheme from scratch
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific numbered Crossover Policy sections breached by a front-garden parking scheme
“These changes do not materially alter the nature of the works compared to the extant consent, other than as specifically indicated below. The extant consent is consequently a material planning consideration of great weight in the determination of this application.”
21/2714
“The proposed crossover onto Kingsbury Road exceeds the maximum width of 4.2m as set out in section 10 of the Crossover Policy”
25/0114
Measured from 63 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 63 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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, 2020–25. · 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 63 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.