Mark Hollington.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 94% across 98 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×.
Hollington's large mixed-use scheme reports fix precise condition wording defects — a public art condition with 'no trigger for when...it is provided at all' — and propose specific redrafted wording rather than accepting vague obligations. He explicitly credits a scheme's negotiation history where 'many of the harmful and negative features' (a lift enclosure, ceiling removal) have been removed through consultation with an amenity society, treating the surviving proposal as a 'reasonable compromise'.
· identifies precise defects in approved condition wording (no trigger for delivery, no requirement that a benefit is ever actually provided) and proposes specific redrafted wording to fix them
· credits a scheme's negotiation history explicitly, listing the specific harmful features removed through consultation with a named amenity society as evidence the surviving proposal is a 'reasonable compromise'
· on refusals of clear glazing/overlooking schemes, cross-references SPECIFIC pre-existing conditions from a related permission (obscure glazing requirements, a terrace-use restriction) that the current application would breach
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a condition's wording actually has a trigger requiring the benefit to be delivered, not just referenced
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific harmful features removed from a scheme through consultation with a named amenity society
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a new proposal would breach a specific pre-existing condition (obscure glazing, terrace-use restriction) from a related permission on the same site
“This wording needs amending as there is currently no trigger for when the public art needs to be provided or, indeed, whether it is provided at all”
20/03987/FULL
“The current proposals represent heavily negotiated position and many of the harmful and negative features and been removed from the scheme. These include the rear lift enclose, removal of roof and ceilings of 21b Devonshire Street”
20/04310/FULL
Measured from 68 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 68 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 68 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.