Development Intent
AtlasBrentOfficersIman Abdulkadir
Planning Atlas›Brent›Iman Abdulkadir
Case officer · Brent Planning

Iman Abdulkadir.

Last recorded decision Jul 2023 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 74% across 90 decided planning applications, spanning 12 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer90 decisions74% approvalSave
Brent · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
90
Applications
2021–23
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%100%202272%2023
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate74% · 20th of 43
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports141 officer reports parsed
19%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
8%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
7%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
49%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Brent's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Brent reports. Attention, not stance.

Flooding & drainage
2× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.17× borough avg
Materials & detailing
0.93× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.78× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
0.67× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Abdulkadir's reports specify exactly how a site was inspected (officer photographs on a stated date, or agent-supplied photos where access was unavailable) before proceeding, and single-storey extension amenity assessments name each affected neighbour with the precise projection distance beyond their own extension or building line.

Observable habits

· states explicitly how a site was inspected (officer-taken photos with a date, or agent-supplied photos) rather than assuming a standard visit occurred

· measures a proposed extension's projection beyond each named neighbour's own rear wall or extension individually, in metres

· flags where required vehicle crossover dimensions or positions have not been submitted in enough detail to assess

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an explicit statement of how the site was inspected (dated officer photos vs agent-supplied photos) before the assessment proceeds

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise metre projection of an extension beyond each named neighbour's own rear wall or extension

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether submitted vehicle crossover dimensions are detailed enough to assess against the Crossover Guidance

Assigned Iman Abdulkadir on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“Photographs of the site were taken by the officer on 27 October 2022 to externally view the property and confirm the plans submitted.”

22/3543

“The proposed plans indicate a hardstanding area with a width of 1.8m and depth of 5.5m which is less than the minimum required width of 2.4m for a vehicle crossover and driveway to allow space to open car doors.”

22/3573

Measured from 141 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 141 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMP1DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GENERAL
84 times cited
D12a
83 times cited
BD1Leading the Way in Good Urban Design
79 times cited
BGI1GREEN AND BLUE INFRASTRUCTURE IN BRENT
30 times cited
BGI2TREES AND WOODLANDS
27 times cited
BSUI3MANAGING FLOOD RISK
22 times cited
BSUI4ON-SITE WATER MANAGEMENT AND
22 times cited
BHC1BRENT’S HERITAGE ASSETS
13 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
14
86%
14
64%
9
78%
8
63%
7
71%
7
50%
7
71%
7
86%
6
67%
6
83%
3
100%
2
100%
14
86%
14
64%
9
78%
Show all 12 rows
8
63%
7
71%
7
50%
7
71%
7
86%
6
67%
6
83%
3
100%
2
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–23.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
23/1921
Householder
Approved
2023-08-14
23/0404
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2023-08-10
23/1921
Householder
Approved
2023-08-14
23/0404
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2023-08-10
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 90 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Studio 136 Architects Ltd
2. KDB BUILDING DESIGNS
3. KDA Designs LTD
4. KG Plan & Design Ltd
At a glance
OfficerIman Abdulkadir
BoroughBrent
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications90 (2021–23)
Approval rate74%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Brent planning register and published decision notices, 2021–23. · methodology
  2. [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. [3]Condition load — Brent's decision-notice parsing is limited coverage, so no borough or officer figure is shown.
  4. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 141 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.