Lisa McCann.
Last recorded decision Dec 2020 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 58% across 93 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×.
McCann's conservation-area reports cite the exact set-back or gap requirement from the named Design Guide (e.g. a 2-metre side boundary gap in the Barn Hill Conservation Area) and directly attribute a refusal reason to the Conservation Officer's own concern about a 'terraced effect' between properties, rather than her own design judgement alone.
· cites the exact numerical set-back or gap requirement from the named Conservation Area Design Guide before applying it to the proposal
· attributes a specific design concern (e.g. a 'terraced effect' between properties) directly to the Conservation Officer's own assessment
· names the specific habitable room (kitchen, bedroom) served by a neighbouring window when assessing overbearing impact
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise numerical set-back or gap requirement stated in the named Design Guide
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the Conservation Officer's own specific concern, attributed directly rather than folded into the officer's own judgement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which habitable room (kitchen, bedroom) a neighbouring window serves before judging overbearing impact
“The Barn Hill Conservation Area Design Guide states that to preserve the important separation and views between houses you should maintain a minimum gap of 2 metres to the side boundary (including side garages) at all levels.”
20/0098
“The Council’s Conservation Officer has raised concerns that the proposed design would lead to a terraced effect, with no separation between the properties, which is resisted on page 16 of the Barn Hill Conservation Area Design Guide.”
20/0098
Measured from 120 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 120 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.[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. · 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 120 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.