Matthew Pendleton.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 90% across 307 decided planning applications, spanning 9 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×.
Pendleton's Mayfair/Soho listed-building caseload has an unusually high approval rate, and his reports are compact, treating most works as 'acceptable in design and heritage asset terms' with minimal contest, but he is willing to isolate and object to ONE specific harmful element within an otherwise-acceptable scheme (e.g. wood panelling in a closet-wing room 'completely at odds' with the building's character), dealing with it by an amending condition rather than derailing the whole application. He is precise on acoustic conditions, citing the exact design criterion, calculated noise level and compliance margin for plant.
· isolates ONE specific harmful element within an otherwise-acceptable scheme (a single room's proposed treatment) and deals with it by an amending/omitting condition rather than objecting to the whole application
· cites the exact acoustic design criterion, the calculated noise level at the nearest sensitive window, and the resulting compliance margin for plant installations
· notes where a current application 'satisfactorily addressed the reasons for refusal of the previous application', crediting the specific remedial changes made
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a single specific element within a scheme that is out of keeping, dealt with by condition rather than refusing the whole application
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact acoustic design criterion versus the calculated noise level at the nearest sensitive window, with the compliance margin stated
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a resubmission has satisfactorily addressed the SPECIFIC reasons a previous application on the same site was refused
“overcladding the walls and ceiling of the rear closet wing room with wood panelling is completely at odds with the historic character and special architectural interest of the building. This may be omitted by amending condition”
20/01586/FULL
“calculated noise levels at the nearest sensitive property are 36dB and therefore compliant with the City Council criteria for the hours proposed without any need for acoustic mitigation”
20/01586/FULL
Measured from 252 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 252 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 9 rows
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 252 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.