Dwayne Clarke.
Last recorded decision Jan 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 66% across 171 decided planning applications, spanning 11 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×.
Clarke's reports frequently use capitalised parenthetical numerals for quantities (e.g. "TWO (2) roof-lights") and consistently frame acceptable extensions by the mitigating relationship to a specific neighbouring boundary or existing structure, rather than a blanket SPD2 compliance statement. Front-garden crossover refusals are grounded in the exact soft/hard landscaping ratio achieved versus the 50/50 requirement.
· uses capitalised parenthetical numerals for quantities of features (e.g. "TWO (2) roof-lights")
· grounds acceptability of a non-compliant depth or height in a specific, named mitigating factor (a shared access, an existing boundary structure) rather than a blanket compliance statement
· states the exact achieved soft/hard landscaping percentage against the 50/50 requirement when assessing front garden crossovers
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific, named mitigating factor (shared access arrangement, existing boundary structure) that makes an otherwise non-compliant depth or height acceptable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact achieved soft/hard landscaping percentage measured against the 50/50 requirement for front garden crossovers
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a roof lantern or dormer is set back far enough from the front of the property to be visually minimal from the street
“To the rear of the garage, the existing side extension would feature TWO (2) roof-lights within the roof.”
20/0038
“Although the proposal extends more than 3m from the original rear elevation, the impact of the extension is mitigated by the shared access to No. 497, meaning there would be a 1m gap maintained to the reat elevation of the adjoining property.”
20/0006
Measured from 296 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 296 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 11 rows
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.
- [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]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 296 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.