David Willing.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Bexley with an approval rate of 84% across 545 decided planning applications, spanning 18 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 Bexley reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Willing's caseload spans householder extensions, telecoms prior-approvals (GPDOT) and lawful development certificates, and he is notably terse on highways matters — routinely dismissing garage-conversion parking-loss concerns with a near-identical formula ('the front driveway is large enough to accommodate off-street parking... unlikely to have any significant impact on the local highway network') rather than a bespoke swept-path or stress-survey analysis. On neighbouring amenity he is comfortable citing PRIOR REFUSAL REASONING directly — quoting the specific dimensional finding that caused an earlier scheme to be refused ('the ground floor extension, due to its excessive depth, would cause an unacceptable overbearing impact') and then showing numerically how the revised scheme's reduced dimensions overcome that exact objection, rather than re-litigating amenity from scratch. He treats LDCP applications for home-based businesses (phone-based transport/logistics operations) as a narrow factual question of whether the use constitutes 'development' under s.55, deliberately not engaging with wider business-scale concerns.
· on garage-conversion/highways matters, applies a consistent formulaic dismissal ('the front driveway is large enough...unlikely to have any significant impact') rather than a bespoke swept-path or parking-stress analysis for each site
· on resubmitted schemes following a prior refusal, quotes the SPECIFIC dimensional finding that caused the earlier refusal and demonstrates numerically how the revised scheme's reduced depth/height overcomes that named objection
· on LDCP applications for home-based businesses (phone-only booking operations), narrowly confines the s.55 'development' test to the physical use of the residence, deliberately not assessing wider business-scale or trip-generation concerns
· whether the retained front driveway/hardstanding is large enough to accommodate at least one off-street parking space when a garage is converted or demolished
· the specific dimensional finding (depth/height/setback) that caused any PRIOR refusal on the same site, and whether the current scheme's reduced dimensions address it directly
· whether a home-based business use (e.g. taking phone bookings for a private hire/logistics operation) involves any physical alteration or material change of use beyond receiving calls
“The ground flood extension, due to its excessive depth, would cause an unacceptable overbearing impact and feelings of enclosure, impacting upon the rear amenity space and rear ground floor windows of no. 16 Hurstwood Avenue”
23/00598/FUL
“The residence will be used only to receive calls. The application has been submitted to enable the applicant to apply to Transport for London for a Licence to operate an airport transfer service”
23/00705/LDCP
Measured from 485 published Bexley 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 485 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 18 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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 Bexley planning register and published decision notices, 2021–26. · 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 — Bexley'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 485 published Bexley 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.