Adam Brown.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Waltham Forest with an approval rate of 84% across 733 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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 Waltham Forest reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Brown's householder-extension reports are distinctive for a consistent neighbour-by-neighbour structure: each affected adjoining property is addressed in its own paragraph, with the specific separation distance, extension depth and height quantified against that neighbour's own existing rear building line or extension, before a conclusion is reached on loss of light, privacy or outlook for that property specifically. He rarely reaches a refusal on residential-amenity grounds alone unless a specific quantified impact (height and depth on a shared boundary) is identified for a named neighbour, but he is willing to refuse on design/character grounds independently of any amenity finding, citing a scheme's 'poor design' and 'awkward relationship' to the host property and setting a 'poor precedent' for the surrounding terrace.
· addresses each affected neighbouring property in its own paragraph, quantifying separation distance and extension height/depth against that specific neighbour's own rear building line before reaching an amenity conclusion
· distinguishes 'no adverse impact' findings by property rather than issuing one blanket amenity conclusion for the whole scheme
· on design refusals, treats poor design and awkward relationship to the host property as a standalone ground independent of any neighbouring-amenity finding, and explicitly invokes precedent-setting risk for the surrounding terrace
· the exact separation distance, extension depth and height relative to each individual affected neighbour's own boundary or existing extension, assessed neighbour by neighbour rather than in aggregate
· whether a scheme's design and proportions would set a poor precedent for further extensions along the same terrace
· whether an extension's bulk and massing read as subordinate to the host dwelling independent of any neighbouring-amenity impact
“would not be considered to have any adverse impact on the amenity of these neighbouring occupiers by way of restricted outlook, access to light or from overshadowing or impact on privacy”
230202
“is inappropriate and awkward relationship to the host property and the existing extensions already carried out, whereby it has undue negative impact on the host building”
242800
“would set a poor precedence for future developments within this locality contrary to policy 53 of the adopted Local Plan LP1 (2024)”
242800
Measured from 125 published Waltham Forest 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 125 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 rows
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.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Waltham Forest planning register and published decision notices, 2020–26. · 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 — mean effective conditions attached to Waltham Forest decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 125 published Waltham Forest 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.