Development Intent
AtlasWestminsterOfficersMatthew Hollins
Planning Atlas›Westminster›Matthew Hollins
Case officer · Westminster Planning

Matthew Hollins.

Last recorded decision Nov 2020 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 84% across 48 decided planning applications, spanning 4 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer48 decisions84% approvalSave
Westminster · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
48
Applications
2020
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%86%202075%2021
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate84% · 61st of 76
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports21 officer reports parsed
40%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
20%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
29%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
94%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Westminster's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Westminster reports. Attention, not stance.

Transport & parking
2.51× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
2.15× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
2.13× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.65× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.45× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

Assigned Matthew Hollins on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“The exisiting shopfront does not benefit from planning permission, however, it has been in situ since at least July 2012”

20/00263/FULL

“In this instance the proposals would lead to a row of three consecutive non-A1 uses”

20/00548/FULL

Measured from 21 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 21 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DES 5
4 times cited
DES 9
3 times cited
ENV 7
2 times cited
SS5
2 times cited
DES 1
2 times cited
DES 10
2 times cited
H3
2 times cited
S14
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
30
85%
11
91%
4
50%
3
67%
30
85%
11
91%
4
50%
Show all 4 rows
3
67%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
20/07377/FULL
Full Planning Permission Application
Approved
2021-02-02
20/06418/FULL
Full Planning Permission Application
Approved
2021-01-21
20/07377/FULL
Full Planning Permission Application
Approved
2021-02-02
20/06418/FULL
Full Planning Permission Application
Approved
2021-01-21
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 48 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Rolfe Judd Planning
2. CBRE Ltd
3. Savills
4. Hybrid Planning & Development Limited
At a glance
OfficerMatthew Hollins
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications48 (2020)
Approval rate84%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Westminster planning register and published decision notices, 2020. · methodology
  2. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 21 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.