Development Intent
AtlasBrentOfficersNicola Blake
Case officer · Brent Planning

Nicola Blake.

Active — last recorded decision Mar 2026

A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 64% across 357 decided planning applications, spanning 17 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer357 decisions64% 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 →
357
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%59%202068%202156%202263%202380%202485%2025100%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate64% · 30th 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 reports415 officer reports parsed
13%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
4%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
5%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
65%
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.

Daylight & sunlight
1.74× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
1.1× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.09× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.04× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.04× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Blake's reports cite specific policy code combinations at the point of refusal (e.g. DMP1, DMP17, DMP18 and London Plan Policy 3.5 together) and set out parking allowance calculations from the DMP appendix tables explicitly, including for major applications with dozens of flats. Prior-approval refusals name the exact statutory basis (Schedule 2 Part 3) that the applicant has failed to meet.

Observable habits

· lists the specific combination of local and London Plan policy codes breached at the point of refusal rather than a general policy reference

· sets out parking allowance calculations against named DMP appendix tables, including for larger multi-unit schemes

· identifies the precise GPDO/GPDO Schedule part that a prior-approval application fails to satisfy

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the full combination of specific policy codes (local plan and London Plan) breached, stated together rather than singly

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a parking allowance calculation traceable to the specific DMP appendix table used

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact GPDO Schedule 2 Part 3 class the applicant has failed to satisfy for prior approval

Assigned Nicola Blake 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

The proposal fails to comply with London Plan Policy 3.5 and Brent’s Development Management Policies DMP1, DMP17 and DMP18 and is therefore recommended for refusal.

20/0351

The application therefore fails to meet the requirements for determination under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, as amended.

20/0176

Measured from 415 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 415 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMP1DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GENERAL
148 times cited
BD1Leading the Way in Good Urban Design
64 times cited
D12a
55 times cited
BT2PARKING AND CAR FREE DEVELOPMENT WHICH ARE
47 times cited
BSUI4ON-SITE WATER MANAGEMENT AND
38 times cited
BH1Maximising opportunities for additional homes
37 times cited
BH13New dwellings external private amenity space requirement
31 times cited
BT4FORMING AN ACCESS ON TO A ROAD
29 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
25/2949
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-05-12
26/0398
Full Planning Permission
2026-02-17
25/2949
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2026-05-12
26/0398
Full Planning Permission
2026-02-17
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 357 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Solutions30
2. Studio 136 Architects Ltd
3. The Gillett Macleod Partnership
4. Oceanlink Construct Ltd
At a glance
OfficerNicola Blake
BoroughBrent
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications357 (2020–26)
Approval rate64%
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, 2020–26. · 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 415 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.