Tom Burke.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 100% across 250 decided planning applications, spanning 8 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×.
Burke handles the very highest-significance national heritage estate (Palace of Westminster, Lancaster House, Guards Chapel, Whitehall) and has a 100% approval rate among reports read, working through a strict classification system for elements like railings (four defined categories from historic-original to non-original) to guide a consistent colour/material strategy across an entire estate. He precisely distinguishes which specific historic phase or architect's work is being touched (Giles Gilbert Scott's post-war reconstruction versus original 1838 fabric) and defers unresolved technical questions (a plaster-replication method) to future specialist trials rather than approving speculatively.
· applies a formal, defined classification system (e.g. four categories of railings from historic-original to non-original) to guide a consistent decision across an entire estate rather than case-by-case ad hoc judgement
· precisely identifies which specific historic phase or named architect's work (e.g. Giles Gilbert Scott's post-war reconstruction) is being touched by a proposal, distinguishing it from the earliest original fabric
· defers an unresolved technical question (a plaster-replication method not yet proven) to future specialist trials rather than approving a solution that has not been demonstrated to work
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which category of a formal estate-wide classification system a specific element (railings, fabric) falls into
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific historic phase or named architect responsible for the fabric being altered
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed technical solution (a fabric-replication method) has actually been proven to work, deferring where it has not
“in the light of forthcoming major works (i.e. Restoration & Renewal) would be a useful project”
20/00154/LBC
“1. Historic railings to be refurbished and maintained with original decorative scheme where this can be identified. 2. More recent railings designed with reference to specific periods during the development of the building”
20/01322/LBC
Measured from 94 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 94 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 8 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 94 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.