Phoebe Graham.
Last recorded decision Feb 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 92% across 41 decided planning applications, spanning 5 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×.
Graham's Covent Garden/Chinatown shopfront casework consistently narrates a negotiation sequence — an originally-proposed detail (a plain door, sash windows without glazing bars) rejected as inconsistent with the building's proportions, then revised with a specific added detail (a panelled stallriser match, added glazing bars) that resolves the concern. She distinguishes a community association's general area-character objection from the applicant's actual stated intent (natural ventilation, not a takeaway service hatch) and tests each specific concern against the facts before dismissing it.
· narrates a specific negotiation sequence — an originally-proposed detail rejected as inconsistent with the building's proportions, revised with a specific added feature (glazing bars, a matching panel) that resolves the objection
· tests each specific consultee objection against the actual facts of the proposal (checking whether the applicant genuinely intends a takeaway service hatch before dismissing a noise objection premised on that)
· distinguishes concealed/discreet installation (LED lighting hidden behind existing mouldings) as the specific factor making an otherwise-visible intervention acceptable in a listed interior
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific negotiated design detail (glazing bars, panel match) that resolves an initial concern about a shopfront's relationship to the building's proportions
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a consultee's objection is based on the applicant's actual stated intent or an assumed use not actually proposed
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an intervention (lighting, fixtures) is concealed/discreet, as the operative factor making it acceptable in a listed interior
“As a result of negotiations with officers, the proposed door now includes a solid panel which is in line with the existing stallriser”
21/00504/FULL
“The applicant has not stated that they propose to sell through these windows as the business is a sit-in restaurant and not a takeaway”
21/02861/FULL
Measured from 38 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 cited most on decision notices for applications Phoebe Graham decided — 35 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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, 2020–22. · 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 38 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.