Hebe Leung.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 80% across 583 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×.
Leung's Certificate of Lawfulness reports handle non-rectangular dormer shapes (triangular, trapezium) with the specific geometric formula shown for each, and refusal reports on outbuildings and garages cross-reference the specific reasons for refusal of a recent related application on the same site to test whether they have been addressed.
· applies the correct geometric formula (triangular, trapezium) for irregular dormer shapes rather than defaulting to a simple box calculation
· cross-references the exact reasons for refusal of a recent related application on the same site to test whether the current proposal overcomes them
· checks whether a proposed garage/outbuilding has independent street access, treating this as evidence for or against a genuinely incidental use
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the correct geometric formula for irregular (triangular/trapezium) dormer shapes rather than a simplified box calculation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific reasons for refusal of a recent related application on the same site, tested one by one against the current scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a garage/outbuilding has independent street access as evidence bearing on genuinely incidental use
“The Rear Main Dormer Extension (triangular): � Proposes a width of 5.64 m � Proposes a depth of 3.86 m � Proposes a height of 2.31 m � Proposes an internal volume of 22.3 cubic metres [(5.64 * 3.86 * 2.31) / 2 = 25.1]”
22/3502
“This application follows a recent refusal 22/1194 for ' Erection of double garage to rear to dwellinghouse. The reasons for refusal are as follows : 1. The proposed outbuilding due to its poor design, excessive size and siting, would unacceptably reduce the level of garden provision”
22/3339
Measured from 180 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 180 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 11 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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, 2021–26. · 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 180 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.