Development Intent
AtlasBrentOfficersJeanne Gleize
Case officer · Brent Planning

Jeanne Gleize.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 65% across 412 decided planning applications, spanning 15 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer412 decisions65% 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 →
412
Applications
2021–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%78%202263%202358%202475%202558%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate65% · 28th 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 reports166 officer reports parsed
21%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
29%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
24%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
63%
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.

Trees & landscape
1.34× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.27× borough avg
Materials & detailing
0.94× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
0.92× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.8× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Gleize's reports carefully track application validation history and deviations from a previously approved scheme (e.g. an enforcement case opened because a rear dormer was built wider than approved), and cite specific decibel figures from Environmental Health's noise assessment of proposed air conditioning/plant units rather than a general 'no objection' statement.

Observable habits

· tracks an application’s validation history explicitly, including where plans were made invalid and revised for accuracy

· identifies the precise deviation between a built structure and its previously approved plans that triggered an enforcement case

· cites the specific decibel figure from Environmental Health's noise assessment of plant/AC units rather than a general no-objection statement

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an application's validation history, including where plans were initially invalid and later corrected

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise way a built structure deviates from its previously approved plans, where an enforcement case is linked

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific decibel figure from an Environmental Health plant noise assessment, not a general no-objection statement

Assigned Jeanne Gleize 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

It is understood that the present application seeks to address and regularise this. The present application was initially validated on 22/11/2021, however it was made invalid as the plans were incorrect and did not show the existing ground levels accurately.

21/2734

The Council’s Environmental Heath Team has reviewed the application and noted that the combined noise level for all 5x units would be 54dB therefore the noise level at the nearest residential would be 42dB.

21/2734

Measured from 166 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 166 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMP1DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GENERAL
100 times cited
D12a
92 times cited
BD1Leading the Way in Good Urban Design
90 times cited
BHC1BRENT’S HERITAGE ASSETS
26 times cited
BGI2TREES AND WOODLANDS
16 times cited
HC1Heritage conservation and growth
11 times cited
BSUI4ON-SITE WATER MANAGEMENT AND
7 times cited
BSUI3MANAGING FLOOD RISK
7 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
26/0664
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-03
26/0384
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-01
26/0664
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-03
26/0384
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-06-01
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 412 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Construct 360 T/AS DontMoveExtend.com
2. Smart Planning Designs Ltd
3. KDB Building Designs Ltd
4. KRN Design Studio
At a glance
OfficerJeanne Gleize
BoroughBrent
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications412 (2021–26)
Approval rate65%
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, 2021–26. · 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 166 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.