Adam Jones.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 86% across 301 decided planning applications, spanning 6 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 Westminster reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Adam Jones is exacting on daylight/sunlight VSC data, naming the specific number of windows tested, the largest single loss and which floor/room it affects, and is willing to accept a technical BRE breach where the underlying base figure was already very low (making the percentage loss disproportionate). On larger Mayfair/CAZ redevelopments he routinely removes permitted development rights for later alterations (doors, windows, roof, facade painting) to protect a scheme's approved design in perpetuity, and checks unit-mix policy compliance precisely, accepting a 'less desirable' mix where family-sized accommodation is not lost.
· names the specific number of windows tested for daylight/sunlight, the single largest loss and which floor/room it affects, distinguishing a technical BRE breach from a genuinely harmful one where the base figure was already very low
· removes permitted development rights for later alterations (doors, windows, roof, facade painting) on new-build/redeveloped schemes to protect the approved design from future erosion
· checks unit-mix and housing-size policy compliance precisely, accepting a less-desirable but policy-workable mix where no family-sized accommodation is genuinely lost
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific number of windows tested, the single largest daylight/sunlight loss, and whether a low base figure makes a percentage breach disproportionate
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether permitted development rights should be removed to protect a newly-approved design from later unauthorised alteration
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed unit mix, even if less desirable, avoids the loss of family-sized accommodation
“The 2 rooms which experience a ratio reduction in excess of BRE guidelines (that being a ratio reduction of 0.8 or above) the ratio reductions are of 0.75 and 0.79”
20/00245/FULL
“permitted development rights for alterations to doors, windows, the roof, and fa�ade painting, should all be removed”
20/01878/FULL
Measured from 227 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 227 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
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 Westminster 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 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 227 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.