Jack Morris.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 71% across 216 decided planning applications, spanning 12 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×.
Morris has a notably high refusal rate and is precise about running GPDO Class A criteria as discrete compliant/non-compliant checks against specific proposed materials (timber cladding failing the article 2(3) land test even where an adjacent window element passes). On householder schemes he records specific negotiated reductions (dormer massing reduced, a kitchenette omitted to preserve ancillary status) that avoided the need for re-consultation, and searches neighbouring streets' planning history for directly comparable consented precedents by address and reference before accepting a first-of-its-kind feature on a specific row.
· runs GPDO Class A criteria as discrete compliant/non-compliant checks against specific proposed materials, distinguishing which individual elements pass and which fail even within the same application
· records a specific negotiated reduction (reduced dormer massing, an omitted kitchenette to preserve ancillary status) made specifically to avoid triggering the need for re-consultation
· searches neighbouring streets' planning history for directly comparable consented precedents by address and reference before accepting a design feature that would be the first of its kind on a specific row
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which specific proposed materials/elements pass or fail each individual GPDO Class A criterion, not a blanket compliance judgement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a scheme was reduced specifically to avoid triggering the need for re-consultation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: directly comparable consented precedents on neighbouring streets, cited by address and planning reference, before accepting a first-of-its-kind feature
“the timber cladding to the adjoining walls would fail to meet A.2 (a)”
23/04541/CLOPUD
“A search through the planning history of neighbouring properties reveals four consented dormer roof extensions to the properties to the rear of the application site, in the terrace of nos. 150 to 166 Fernhead Road”
23/04273/FULL
Measured from 118 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 118 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 12 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[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, 2023–26. · 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 118 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.