Nosheen Javed.
Last recorded decision Oct 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 91% across 289 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×.
Javed is precise about naming the exact reason a PRIOR application on the same site was refused (quoting the refusal wording directly, e.g. double-glazing 'harmed the special architectural and historic interest'), and tests whether the resubmission's specific amendment (single glazing instead of double) directly resolves that stated reason. On identical resubmissions of an extant-but-expiring permission, she notes explicitly that 'much of the previous assessment is the same' and focuses her report on the narrow delta between the two schemes.
· quotes the exact wording of a prior refusal reason on the same site and tests whether the specific amendment (a material change like single vs double glazing) directly resolves it
· on identical resubmissions of an about-to-expire permission, explicitly states that much of the previous assessment carries over and focuses the report on the narrow delta between the schemes
· distinguishes a listed building's higher-significance original spaces from a lower-significance later fabric (e.g. a later-date staircase) when judging whether removal is acceptable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact wording of a prior refusal reason on the same site, and whether the current amendment specifically resolves it
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the narrow delta between a resubmitted scheme and an expiring extant permission it closely repeats
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a feature being removed is original higher-significance fabric or a later, lower-significance addition
“Because of their detailed design, in particular the thickness and reflection of the glazing, the proposed double-glazed windows would harm the special architectural and historic interest of this grade II listed building”
20/00134/FULL
“This report evaluates the same scheme and much of the previous assessment is the same”
20/00472/FULL
Measured from 243 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 243 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[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, 2020–23. · 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 243 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.