Ryan Wong.
Recently active — last recorded decision Jan 2025
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 72% across 235 decided planning applications, spanning 10 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×.
Wong's reports carry a distinctive summary style with bulleted, bold-flag conclusions (ACCEPTABLE / COMPLIANT / REFUSAL) per issue rather than a single closing paragraph, and he checks Article 4 Direction status for a site directly before assuming permitted development rights apply, particularly in the Kilburn Conservation Area.
· summarises assessment findings as bulleted, capitalised verdict flags (ACCEPTABLE/COMPLIANT/REFUSAL) per issue rather than one closing paragraph
· checks whether a site is subject to an Article 4 Direction removing permitted development rights before assuming a use/alteration is lawful
· compares a proposed extension against the exact depth/height of a specific approved extension at a named neighbouring address using satellite imagery records
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an Article 4 Direction removes permitted development rights for the site before any PD assumption is made
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a bulleted, capitalised verdict (ACCEPTABLE/COMPLIANT/REFUSAL) stated per issue rather than folded into one closing paragraph
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: satellite imagery records cross-checked against a named neighbouring property's own extension depth/history
“the site falls within the Kilburn Conservation Area and is protected by an Article 4 Direction made by the Council (came into effect on 18/12/2021), which removed the Permitted Development Rights of any Class E development within the area.”
22/3214
“As such, this proposed rear extension is considered to be ACCEPTABLE in relation to the potential impacts to No.79.”
22/3223
Measured from 165 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 165 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 10 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–25.[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, 2022–25. · 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 165 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.