Jasmin Tailor.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 63% across 902 decided planning applications, spanning 15 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×.
Tailor's reports use a distinctive bullet-point checklist against SPD2 (Depth / Roof / Width / Building Features / Use, each marked compliant or not) for householder extensions, and work through the GPDO's numbered questions clause-by-clause for Certificate of Lawfulness cases rather than summarising the outcome. Conservation-area refusals cite the specific Character Appraisal or Design Guide wording (e.g. exact adjectives used to describe the property) before applying it to the proposal.
· sets out extension compliance as a labelled bullet checklist (Depth/Roof/Width/Building Features/Use) rather than a single narrative paragraph
· answers each numbered GPDO sub-question on Certificate of Lawfulness applications individually, including the "N/A" ones, rather than only stating the final verdict
· quotes the exact Conservation Area Character Appraisal description of a host property before assessing a proposal against it
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a labelled bullet-by-bullet SPD2 compliance check (Depth, Roof, Width, Building Features, Use) rather than a blended narrative verdict
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact wording of the relevant Conservation Area Character Appraisal before judging a proposal's design
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a resubmission has specifically addressed the stated reasons for a previous refusal on the same site
“The extension complies with SPD2 in the following ways: � Depth: Has a rear depth of 6m. There is already a 6m rear extension present at No. 53 Burnside Crescent, which is within the maximum permitted depth stated in SPD2. � Width: Has a total width of 5.9m.”
20/0010
“The property is described in the Sudbury Court Conservation Area Character Appraisal thus stripped down white rendered Moderne stylised houses enlivened by bright green pan tiles.”
20/0112
Measured from 749 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 749 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 15 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 749 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.