Robert Ayton.
Last recorded decision Apr 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 88% across 59 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×.
Ayton is precise about townscape-typology 'characteristic' rules — gates across main entrances, flags above fascia level — treating them as generally unacceptable in principle for the West End/Mayfair typology and citing specific dismissed Planning Inspectorate appeals confirming the Council's position on the same rule. He assesses remedial listed-building consent applications by directly comparing what was actually built on site to what was originally approved, identifying exactly how the built work exceeded the consent.
· treats certain features (gates across main entrances, flags above fascia level) as generally unacceptable in principle for the specific West End/Mayfair townscape typology, citing a dismissed Inspectorate appeal confirming the rule
· compares what was actually built on site against what was originally approved under an earlier listed building consent, identifying exactly how the built work exceeded that consent
· suggests a specific alternative location (a recessed entrance rather than the main facade) that WOULD make an otherwise-refused feature acceptable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a feature (gates, flags) is generally unacceptable in principle for the specific townscape typology, supported by a cited dismissed appeal
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise discrepancy between what was actually built and what was originally approved under a prior listed building consent
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific alternative location or design that would make an otherwise-unacceptable feature acceptable
“Gates across the entrances of buildings are normally considered unacceptable in principle. This is because a gate across the main entrance of the building is characteristic of the townscape of the West End”
20/01549/FULL
“The work carried out on site did not comply with that listed building consent. The opening formed was much larger than approved”
20/00399/LBC
Measured from 42 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 42 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
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 42 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.