Janseway Cheung.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 66% across 449 decided planning applications, spanning 14 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×.
Cheung's reports cite Supplementary Planning Guidance by its specific number (e.g. SPG20 for outbuildings) when the relevant Conservation Area Design Guide is silent on a topic, and justify departures from that guidance by reference to similarly-scaled precedent at named neighbouring addresses in consultation with the Heritage Conservation Officer.
· cites the specific numbered Supplementary Planning Guidance document (e.g. SPG20) used when the relevant Conservation Area Design Guide has no specific guidance on a topic
· justifies a departure from stated size guidance by reference to similarly-scaled precedent at named neighbouring addresses, confirmed in consultation with the Heritage Conservation Officer
· checks flood zone status and existing vegetation with the Tree Officer even for modest domestic applications
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which specific numbered SPG applies when the Conservation Area Design Guide has no guidance on a topic
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: named neighbouring precedent for an oversized feature, confirmed directly with the Heritage Conservation Officer rather than assumed
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: Tree Officer input on garden vegetation even for modest domestic proposals
“The Mount Stewart Conservation Area Design Guide does not contain specific guidance in relation to outbuildings.Therefore, SPG20 is use for the assessment.”
22/2432
“However, upon consultation with the Heritage Conservation Officer, there are existing properties within vicinity of the site that also consists of large outbuildings in the rear garden.”
22/2432
Measured from 184 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 184 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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, 2022–26. · 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 184 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.