Holly Sharpley.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 93% across 374 decided planning applications, spanning 14 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×.
Sharpley's caseload is Portman Estate/Harley Street listed-building consent for internal fit-out and repair, with one of the highest approval rates in this corpus. Her distinguishing habit is recording physical investigation FINDINGS rather than assumptions about hidden fabric — she notes what was found on opening up a floor or wall ('investigations beneath the boarded floor found that no floorboards survive') and lets that finding drive the acceptability judgement directly. She is willing to negotiate a repair-not-replace outcome for weathered/exposed fabric mid-application, and defers incomplete elements of a scheme (e.g. secondary glazing detail) to a later, separate application rather than holding up the whole decision.
· records the actual finding of a physical/structural investigation (opened-up floor, wall) rather than an assumption, and lets that finding directly drive the significance judgement
· negotiates a repair-rather-than-replace outcome for weathered or exposed original fabric during the course of the application
· defers an incomplete or under-detailed element of a scheme (e.g. secondary glazing specification) to a future separate application rather than holding up the rest of the decision
· explicitly notes when a listed building's interior was 'altered significantly prior to their listing' as reducing the weight given to later internal changes
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the actual physical finding once fabric is opened up or investigated, not an assumption about what survives
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether repair (rather than replacement) of weathered original fabric can be negotiated during the application
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an interior was materially altered before the building was even listed, reducing the weight of later changes
“Investigations beneath the boarded floor found that no floorboards survive. Furthermore, the skirtings in the flat are modern replacements and are of no interest.”
20/00009/LBC
“The proposals have been negotiated to ensure fabric is retained and repaired rather than replaced.”
20/00019/FULL
“Further detail regarding the secondary glazing is required, however, this element of the proposals has been omitted from this application.”
20/00019/FULL
Measured from 299 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 299 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 rows
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 299 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.