Matthew Mason.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 99% across 81 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×.
Mason's caseload includes numerous discrete infrastructure DCO-requirement discharge applications (Thames Tideway) where he cross-references a specific numbered Schedule requirement against a named consultee (HBMCE, Environment Agency, PLA) to confirm each discrete element (landscaping, drainage, river wall design) meets its own approval condition. He explains a design constraint (tree-planting spacing) by reference to an unrelated future operational need (crane access every 10 years for maintenance) rather than assuming an aesthetic-only reason.
· cross-references a specific numbered Schedule/DCO requirement against the relevant named consultee (HBMCE, Environment Agency, PLA, TfL) to confirm each discrete element independently meets its own condition
· explains an apparent design constraint (tree-planting spacing) by reference to an unrelated future operational necessity (recurring maintenance crane access) rather than an aesthetic-only reason
· notes where a stakeholder not formally a statutory consultee (the Port of London Authority) nonetheless requested specific additional detail (more ladders) that has since been incorporated by agreement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether each discrete DCO Schedule requirement is independently confirmed acceptable by its own named relevant consultee
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an apparent design constraint has an unrelated operational explanation (future maintenance access) rather than being purely aesthetic
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a non-statutory stakeholder's specific request has been incorporated into the design by subsequent agreement
“it is likely that spacing is dictated by the ten year maintenance plan of the dropshaft which will require full crane access every 10 years”
20/00762/ADTTT
“the PLA requested more ladders than shown in the approved application. The applicant advises that the ladder location and berth furniture such as the addition of a lifebuoy has now been agreed with the PLA”
20/06611/ADTTT
Measured from 44 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 44 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 44 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.