Shui-Fung Siu.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 86% across 313 decided planning applications, spanning 18 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×.
Siu's Bayswater/embassy listed-building casework is precise about the general 'ten year rule' logic for double glazing — repair preferred to replacement, but replacement of already-non-original double glazing after ten years may be justified — and consistently distinguishes non-original later fabric (a 1930s fire escape) from original historic material when deciding what can change. She is candid about COVID-19 site-visit substitution, citing detailed historic building reports and applicant photographs as the alternative evidential basis.
· applies the 'ten year rule' logic for double glazing on listed buildings — repair is preferred, but replacing already-non-original double glazing after ten years may be justified, while introducing NEW double glazing is not
· distinguishes non-original later fabric (a 1930s fire escape, later bathroom fittings) from original historic material to decide which elements can be changed without harming significance
· cites a detailed Historic Building Report with dated archive photographs as the alternative evidential basis where COVID-19 prevented a site visit
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether existing double glazing is already non-original and over ten years old, as the test for whether its replacement (still double glazed) can be justified
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a fabric element being altered is original historic material or a later, non-original addition
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a detailed Historic Building Report with dated photographs as the evidential substitute where a site visit could not occur
“If the existing rear windows are non-original and were installed, with double glazing, over ten years ago, their replacement again with double glazing may be justified. But the ten year rule does not appear to justify the introduction of double glazing now”
20/00999/FULL
“The existing bathroom and kitchen metal windows and door are later additions and were installed at the time same time as the first escape in the 1930's, they are of no historic interest and pre-date the listing of the building”
20/00999/FULL
Measured from 235 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 235 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 18 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 235 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.