Rebecca Mason.
Last recorded decision May 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 92% across 127 decided planning applications, spanning 13 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×.
Mason regularly deals with RETROSPECTIVE listed-building applications following Planning Enforcement investigations, and is candid that submitting applications post-completion is 'not encouraged' while still assessing each on its own merits. She distinguishes fabric that has been CONCEALED but not physically removed (skirting boards encased behind new panelling) from fabric genuinely lost, treating concealment-without-loss as acceptable, and names multiple directly comparable precedent applications on the SAME street by address and reference to justify accepting a compromised internal alteration.
· assesses retrospective applications following Planning Enforcement investigation on their own merits while explicitly noting that post-completion submission is 'not encouraged' by the process
· distinguishes fabric that has been concealed but not physically removed (skirtings encased behind new panelling) from fabric genuinely lost, treating concealment-without-loss as acceptable subject to reversibility
· names multiple directly comparable precedent applications on the SAME street by address and reference to justify accepting an internal alteration in an already-compromised interior
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a retrospective application follows a Planning Enforcement investigation, assessed on its own merits despite the process being discouraged
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether fabric has been genuinely removed/lost or merely concealed (and reversibly so) behind new work
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: multiple named comparable precedent applications on the SAME street, cited by address and reference
“it is regrettable that applications have been submitted post completion of developments to the application site and this is not encouraged by the planning application process, however the Local Planning Authority is duty bound to assess an application on its own merits when submitted”
20/00024/FULL
“the existing skirtings have been retained behind the panelling; photographs have been provided to demonstrate that the skirtings are encased within the new timberwork”
20/00237/FULL
Measured from 85 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 85 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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, 2020–21. · 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 85 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.