Max Leonardo.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 95% across 197 decided planning applications, spanning 6 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×.
Leonardo's Knightsbridge/Belgravia listed-building casework traces resubmissions directly against the SPECIFIC stated reason a previous scheme was refused (a privacy loss to a named neighbour), and details precisely how the new design (obscured glazing, an inset rooflight designed not to be stood on) resolves that specific harm rather than reassessing the whole scheme afresh. He distinguishes a building's non-original later addition (a 1990s roof conservatory) as carrying no architectural or historic interest, setting a materially lower bar for its replacement.
· traces a resubmission directly against the SPECIFIC stated reason a previous scheme on the same site was refused (a named neighbour's privacy loss) and details precisely how the new design resolves it
· distinguishes a building's non-original later addition (a 1990s roof conservatory) as carrying no architectural or historic interest, setting a materially lower bar for its replacement
· designs conditions to make a marginal overlooking risk practically negligible (a rooflight designed so it 'could not reasonably be expected to be stood upon') rather than refusing on a residual theoretical risk
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific stated reason a prior scheme on the same site was refused, and whether the new design precisely resolves it
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a feature being altered is a non-original later addition carrying no architectural or historic interest
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a design detail makes a marginal overlooking risk practically negligible rather than merely theoretically reduced
“The existing roof level conservatory is a 1990s addition to the building and is not considered to be of architectural or historic interest”
22/04706/FULL
“The rooflight in the roof of the proposed lower ground floor rear extension has now been designed so that it could not reasonably be expected to be stood upon, further reducing the area of the proposed ground floor roof terrace from which any potential overlooking of No. 53 may arise”
22/04994/FULL
Measured from 158 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 158 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 158 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.