Harry Berks.
Last recorded decision Dec 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 79% across 214 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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×.
Berks is exacting on CLEUD lawful-commencement evidence, working through each individual item of submitted evidence (a cover letter, a discharge decision notice, dated photographs) and stating explicitly which items DO and DO NOT actually prove a material operation was carried out, rather than accepting a bundle of documents as a whole. On repeat/near-identical applications for the same site with only minor added elements, he explicitly notes that because there has been no change to policy since a closely related scheme was approved, the same conclusion applies to the new elements.
· works through each individual item of submitted evidence separately, stating explicitly which items do and do not actually prove the claim (e.g. a discharge notice alone does not prove a material operation was carried out)
· on repeat applications closely following a recently approved scheme, explicitly checks whether there has been any change to policy since the earlier approval before reapplying the same conclusion
· credits negotiated design omissions (windows removed to preserve consistent glazing proportions with neighbouring fenestration) as resolving an identified design objection
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether each individual item of evidence actually proves a material operation was carried out, not just that a bundle of documents exists
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether there has been any change to policy since a closely related scheme for the same site was approved
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a professional structural engineer's report is sufficient to show no foreseeable reason preventing a basement in principle, distinct from final building-regulations approval
“these documents alone do not indicate if any material operations have been carried out”
20/00239/CLEUD
“Given that there have not been any changes to local, regional or national policy since this application was determined there is subsequently no reason why the proposed demolition should not be acceptable”
20/00464/FULL
Measured from 167 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 167 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 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 167 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.