Development Intent
AtlasBrentOfficersJune Taylor
Planning Atlas›Brent›June Taylor
Case officer · Brent Planning

June Taylor.

Last recorded decision Aug 2022 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 49% across 45 decided planning applications, spanning 15 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer45 decisions49% 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 →
45
Applications
2020–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%25%202048%202164%2022
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate49% · 43rd 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 reports47 officer reports parsed
11%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
5%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
6%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
79%
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.

Energy & sustainability
6.23× borough avg
Trees & landscape
2.56× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
2.09× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.57× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.31× borough avg

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

Assigned June Taylor 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

“(Note this assessment is based on independent measurements by officers, which use a scaling factor of 5/4.58 to correct the shrinkage caused in creating PDF versions and are approximate).”

20/1528

“This is labelled on the plans as 80.7sqm in area, but has been independently measured at 73sqm, which falls below the minimum standard.”

21/0003

Measured from 47 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 47 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMP1DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GENERAL
21 times cited
T5Cycling
10 times cited
BD1Leading the Way in Good Urban Design
9 times cited
BT2PARKING AND CAR FREE DEVELOPMENT WHICH ARE
9 times cited
CP17
7 times cited
D6Housing Quality and Standards
7 times cited
H1Increasing housing supply
7 times cited
H2Small sites
7 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
6
50%
5
40%
5
40%
4
0%
4
100%
3
0%
3
33%
3
33%
3
67%
2
50%
2
50%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
6
50%
5
40%
5
40%
Show all 15 rows
4
0%
4
100%
3
0%
3
33%
3
33%
3
67%
2
50%
2
50%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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
21/3754
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2022-11-03
22/2526
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2022-10-07
21/3754
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2022-11-03
22/2526
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2022-10-07
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 45 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Khalid Khan & Associates
2. Construct 360 Ltd T/A DontMoveExtend.com
3. Pearson Associates
4. DS Sqaured Architects
At a glance
OfficerJune Taylor
BoroughBrent
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications45 (2020–22)
Approval rate49%
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, 2020–22. · 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 47 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.