Alexander De.
Last recorded decision Mar 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 80% across 81 decided planning applications, spanning 15 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×.
De's Mayfair/Bayswater listed-building casework is precise about distinguishing already non-historic fixtures (entrance lamps, previously-replaced window frames) as free to remove without harm, while requiring photographic archive evidence (London Picture Archive) to test whether a currently-installed replacement window design (with 'horns' below the meeting rail) actually matches the historic original before accepting it retrospectively. He is comfortable phasing large multi-window replacement schemes across time except where piecemeal replacement of a matched glazing pattern (margin-light windows) would create visual discord, requiring those specific windows to be done as a single phase.
· requires archival photographic evidence (London Picture Archive) to test whether a currently-installed replacement window's specific detail (e.g. 'horns' on the sash) actually matches the historic original before accepting it
· identifies already non-historic fixtures (entrance lamps, previously replaced frames) as free to remove without harm, distinct from genuinely original fabric
· permits phased replacement of a large window scheme across time, except for a specific MATCHED glazing pattern (margin lights) where piecemeal replacement would create visual discord, requiring those windows as a single phase
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: archival photographic evidence of a window's original historic detail before accepting a retrospective replacement matches it
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a fixture is already non-historic (previously replaced) and therefore free to remove without harm
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a specific matched glazing pattern requires single-phase replacement to avoid visual discord from piecemeal work
“Photographic evidence available (London Picture Archive) shows that the windows removed were not historic. The replaced windows were traditional painted timber sashes with slender glazing bars and a putty beading, but were installed onwards of 1974”
22/00190/FULL
“it is proposed that for the first floor windows on Devonshire Street and Portland Place; and the second floor on Portland Place a condition is imposed, requiring that these windows must be done as a single phase of works”
21/08231/FULL
Measured from 78 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 78 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 15 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–23.[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, 2021–23. · 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 78 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.