Rebecca Lo.
Last recorded decision Mar 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 72% across 18 decided planning applications, spanning 12 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.
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×.
Lo's reports on crossovers and front-garden parking set out the exact soft/hard landscaping split achieved in sqm and percentage, checked against Brent's Domestic Vehicle Footway Crossover Policy by numbered section, and industrial/B8 renovation reports set out precise before/after floorspace and parking allowance figures.
· states the exact soft/hard landscaping split achieved in both sqm and percentage terms for front-garden crossover applications
· checks the proposal against Brent's Domestic Vehicle Footway Crossover Policy by specific numbered section
· sets out precise before/after floorspace and parking-allowance figures for industrial/B8 renovation schemes
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact soft/hard landscaping split achieved, in both sqm and percentage terms
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific numbered section of the Domestic Vehicle Footway Crossover Policy engaged by a proposal
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: precise before/after floorspace and parking allowance figures for industrial/B8 schemes
“According to the plans provided, 38% would be soft landscaping and 62% would be hardstanding, which would be contrary to DMP12 and SPD2 to retain a 50/50 balance.”
22/0061
“The 5m width of the proposed crossover exceeds the maximum permitted width of 4.2m for two parking spaces therefore fails to comply with Brent’s Crossover Policy (Section 10 and 22).”
22/0061
Measured from 30 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 30 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 12 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–22.[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, 2021–22. · 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 30 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.