Julia Asghar.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 98% across 98 decided planning applications, spanning 8 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×.
Asghar's larger CAZ redevelopment reports compare a scheme's daylight/sunlight VSC impacts directly against what was ALREADY accepted in a previous consented scheme for the same site, treating that earlier-accepted baseline as the relevant comparator rather than a fresh absolute standard. She distinguishes secondary rooms (second bedrooms, studies — not 'main habitable rooms') from primary living spaces when weighing whether a daylight loss is refusal-worthy, and cites specific parking-stress percentage figures from the Council's own night-time and daytime surveys within a defined radius of a site.
· compares a scheme's daylight/sunlight VSC impact directly against what was ALREADY accepted in a previous consented scheme for the same site, using that as the relevant comparator baseline
· distinguishes secondary rooms (second bedrooms, studies) from main habitable rooms (living/kitchen/dining) when weighing whether a daylight/sunlight loss is refusal-worthy
· cites the Council's own specific night-time and daytime parking-stress survey percentages within a defined radius of the site as the evidential basis for a highways conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: what daylight/sunlight VSC loss was already accepted in a previous consented scheme for the same site, as the relevant comparator
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an affected room is a main habitable room or a secondary space (second bedroom, study)
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the Council's own specific parking-stress survey percentage within a defined radius of the site
“the retained VSC levels will be similar to that already considered acceptable in the 2019 consented scheme”
20/02361/FULL
“the affected rooms are second bedrooms and studies, which are not considered to be a main habitable rooms, it is not considered that the application could reasonably be refused on the grounds of loss of light to these flats”
20/02361/FULL
Measured from 74 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 74 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 74 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.