Sarah Whitnall.
Active — last recorded decision Mar 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 75% across 108 decided planning applications, spanning 14 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×.
Whitnall's larger commercial redevelopment reports carry detailed window-by-window daylight/sunlight tables and accept modest BRE-tolerance breaches (up to ~27%) where either the base level was already low or dual-aspect rooms provide alternative light. She refuses entertainment/gaming uses OUTSIDE the CAZ where a specific named UDP policy (TACE12) categorically prohibits the use type in that location, regardless of individual amenity mitigation, and refuses temporary retention of unauthorised structures where planning history (a prior refusal, a dismissed appeal) already established the harm.
· tabulates daylight/sunlight losses window by window against the BRE 20% tolerance, accepting modest breaches where the base level was already low or dual-aspect rooms provide alternative light
· refuses a use type outright where a specific named policy categorically prohibits it in that location (e.g. Adult Gaming Centres outside the CAZ under TACE12), regardless of individual amenity mitigation offered
· refuses continued/temporary retention of an unauthorised structure where the site's own planning history (a prior refusal, a dismissed appeal) already established the harm, rather than reassessing from scratch
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: window-by-window daylight/sunlight loss figures against the BRE 20% tolerance, with base level and dual-aspect context
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a specific named policy categorically prohibits a use type in the proposed location, regardless of individual mitigation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a site's own planning history (a prior refusal, a dismissed appeal) already established that a structure causes harm
“the proposed use as an Adult Gaming Centre outside of the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) is contrary to Policy TACE12 of our UDP, which states that permission will not be granted for such uses outside of the CAZ”
20/06000/FULL
“It is clear from the planning history of the site, including enforcement investigations and a dismissed appeal that interested parties are aware of the unauthor”
20/08131/FULL
Measured from 93 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 93 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 93 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.