Paul Quayle.
Recently active — last recorded decision Jun 2025
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 100% across 93 decided planning applications, spanning 3 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×.
Quayle's caseload includes major infrastructure (Crossrail-linked ventilation) and Grade I listed casework where he traces a proposal's precise design and use history through multiple linked permissions on the same/adjoining sites over 15+ years, and distinguishes a listed interior's areas of 'least special interest' (already modernised decades earlier) from principal historic spaces before permitting internal rearrangement. He is comfortable removing a contested element (replacement plant) from an application specifically to resolve a neighbour objection, deferring it to a separate future application rather than letting it hold up the rest of the scheme.
· traces a proposal's precise design and use history through multiple linked permissions on the same or adjoining sites, often spanning 15+ years, before assessing the current change
· distinguishes a listed interior's areas of 'least special interest' (already modernised decades earlier) from principal historic spaces before permitting internal rearrangement
· removes a specific contested element (replacement plant) from an application to resolve a neighbour objection, deferring it to a separate future application rather than holding up the rest of the scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a proposal's precise design and use history traced through multiple linked permissions, often spanning many years
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the specific part of a listed interior being altered is already modernised (least special interest) or retains principal historic character
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a specific contested element can be removed from an application to resolve an objection, deferred to a future separate submission
“The three affected floors are of least special interest”
20/06728/FULL
“Proposals to replace this plant have been deleted from the application, as detailed above. New applications just for the replacement unit will be submitted separately in due course”
20/06728/FULL
Measured from 72 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 72 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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, 2020–25. · 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 72 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.