Josephine Palmer.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 96% across 122 decided planning applications, spanning 4 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×.
Palmer's West End commercial casework compares a proposed use's operating hours or event pattern directly against a matching format already operating at the SAME OPERATOR'S other location (Porsche's existing Mount Street showroom events) as evidence of what is manageable. On CLEUD lawful-commencement applications she builds a case from multiple independent evidence types together (marked-up drawings, a building contract/programme, dated photographs) rather than any single source, and is willing to accept that a COVID-era site visit substitute (dated photographs alone) is sufficient when combined with other evidence.
· compares a proposed operating pattern (event hours, attendance numbers) directly against a matching format already operating at the SAME OPERATOR'S other named location as evidence it is manageable
· builds a lawful-commencement case from MULTIPLE independent evidence types together (marked-up drawings, a building contract/programme, dated photographs), rather than relying on any single source
· distinguishes a modern non-special-interest structure connected to (but not part of) a listed building at the time of its listing, ruling out the need for listed building consent on works to that separate part
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a matching operating pattern already used successfully at the same operator's other named location
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: multiple independent types of evidence (drawings, contract, photographs) building a combined case for lawful commencement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a modern structure connected to a listed building was actually part of it (or of special interest) at the time of listing
“This occupancy number is in line with average maximum attendance figures recurrently achieved at private events at their existing car showroom in Mount Street”
20/00294/FULL
“It is considered that collectively, this evidence provides a clear picture of the reconfiguration and construction works undertaken to date”
20/02240/CLEUD
Measured from 65 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 65 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 65 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.