Amanda Jackson.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 92% across 58 decided planning applications, spanning 5 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×.
Jackson handles large affordable-housing-linked estate regeneration and heritage-hotel conversion schemes, tracing a site's specific negotiation history around a community-facility obligation (a proposed meeting room replaced with a financial contribution after the housing provider's own cost-management objection) in detail. On S73 amendments she cross-references each individually numbered condition (9, 11, 13, 15, 18) explicitly by number and tracks precisely which are amended, removed, or renumbered as a result of the current application.
· traces a site's specific negotiation history around a community-facility obligation in detail, including the named provider's own stated reason (disproportionate management cost) for preferring a financial contribution over a physical facility
· cross-references each individually numbered condition explicitly by number, tracking precisely which are amended, removed, or renumbered as a direct result of an S73 application
· distinguishes historic fabric that only APPEARS original from what physical investigation during works actually revealed (a fascia believed to be painted timber found to be painted stone), adjusting the approach accordingly
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a site's specific negotiation history around a community-facility or amenity obligation, including the named party's stated reasons for a chosen approach
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each individually numbered condition, tracked precisely for whether it is amended, removed, or renumbered by the current S73 application
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether physical investigation during works revealed fabric to be different from what an original consent assumed
“Sanctuary Housing, the Registered Provider (RP) who were going to own and manage the development at that time did not consider that a meeting room facility would be well used by the residents and would create disproportionately high management costs”
20/00651/FULL
“The fascia was originally believed to be painted timber and as such the December 2018 approved drawings indicate that the existing fascia is to be replaced with a new like-for-like painted timber fascia… The stone fascia does not appear to be original”
21/02702/LBC
Measured from 29 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 29 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 29 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.