Adam Dyer.
Last recorded decision Aug 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 92% across 53 decided planning applications, spanning 13 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 Westminster reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Dyer accepts double glazing on listed buildings specifically where the affected element is BOTH a later addition and located at a high level away from view, treating those two factors together as the exception to the general no-double-glazing rule. He refuses a structural facade-rebuild application for insufficient information, precisely itemising what is missing (cause of cracking not established, no demolition plan, no support-during-works methodology) rather than a general 'more information needed' comment.
· accepts double glazing on a listed building specifically where the element is BOTH a later (non-original) addition AND located at a high level away from public view, treating the combination as the operative exception
· refuses for insufficient information by itemising precisely what is missing (unestablished cause of structural cracking, no demolition plan, no methodology for support during works) rather than a general comment
· credits an opening's altered brickwork tone/joint quality as physical evidence it has already been historically altered, ruling out further harm from a proposed widening
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a fabric element is BOTH a later addition AND at a high level/low visibility before accepting double glazing
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: precisely what specific information is missing (cause of cracking, demolition plan, works methodology) before refusing on information grounds
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: physical evidence (brickwork tone, joint quality) that an opening has already been historically altered before accepting further change
“The proposal is for the use of 12mm double glazing and although this is not always acceptable on listed buildings, in this case, as it is a later addition and located at such a high level the proposals are considered to be acceptable”
21/07176/FULL
“the application contains insufficient information regarding the cause of the cracks or effectively demonstrated that the cracks are continuing to grow”
21/08430/LBC
Measured from 46 published Westminster 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 46 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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 Westminster planning register and published decision notices, 2020–22. · 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 — mean effective conditions attached to Westminster 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 46 published Westminster 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.