Sara Spurrier.
Last recorded decision Jan 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 94% across 37 decided planning applications, spanning 4 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×.
Spurrier accepts a modest floorspace shortfall (6sqm below the National Technical Housing Standard) where the shortfall is limited and the overall accommodation is an improvement, but refuses a mews demolition/rebuild scheme on design/townscape grounds where the building is identified as a non-designated heritage asset in the Council's own conservation area guidance, naming the specific traditional features (winch door, coach doors, bressumer) that would be lost. On CLEUD lawful-commencement applications she is exacting about whether submitted site-inspection photographs are actually DATED, treating undated evidence as insufficient on its own to prove works occurred by the deadline.
· accepts a modest, limited floorspace shortfall against the National Technical Housing Standards where the overall dwelling represents a genuine accommodation improvement
· identifies a mews building as a non-designated heritage asset via the Council's own conservation area guidance, naming the specific traditional features (winch door, coach doors, bressumer) at risk of loss
· on CLEUD lawful-commencement evidence, checks explicitly whether submitted photographs are DATED, treating undated photographic evidence as insufficient on its own
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a space-standard shortfall is modest/limited and offset by an overall accommodation improvement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific named traditional features (winch doors, coach doors) that identify a mews building as a non-designated heritage asset
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether submitted site-inspection photographs are actually dated, not just showing relevant activity
“given that the shortfall is limited to 6 sqm, and as it is accepted that the replacement dwelling would provide an improved standard of residential accommodation, it is not considered that permission could justifiably be withheld on these grounds”
20/01332/FULL
“Other than in the case of the first pile, it is unclear whether these additional works had actually taken place. The attached photographs show a site compound, piling rig and construction equipment, including diggers. However, none of the photographs are dated”
20/00138/CLEUD
Measured from 37 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 37 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 37 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.