Allison Borden.
Active — last recorded decision Mar 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 93% across 473 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×.
Borden's caseload is Belgravia/St James's listed-building repair and fabric-sensitive alteration work, and her most distinctive habit is managing genuine uncertainty about hidden fabric condition through carefully worded amending conditions rather than requiring full pre-determination investigation. Where a door, step or wall's underlying condition can't yet be assessed, she sets a conditional test (retain and repair if sound; replace only if proven beyond repair) rather than approving replacement outright or refusing pending more information. She tracks a flat's specific historic-use continuity (using her own records to confirm a flat has been residential since a specific year) as evidence for how much weight to give its surviving plan form, and consistently records design elements removed or altered following officer advice during the application.
· where hidden fabric condition is genuinely unknown, imposes a conditional test (retain/repair if sound, replace only if proven beyond repair) rather than approving outright or requiring pre-determination investigation
· checks the Council's own historic records for a specific unit's use continuity (e.g. confirming a flat has been residential since a stated year) as evidence for the weight given to surviving plan form
· itemises exactly which elements of an original submission were removed or altered following officer advice, distinguishing the revised scheme from the original
· declines double glazing for fanlights/historic glazing even where the applicant has agreed to a laminated-glazing compromise condition, treating it as the accepted middle ground rather than the ideal
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a fabric element's condition is actually known yet, imposing a conditional retain-or-replace test where it is not
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the Council's own historic record of a specific unit's use continuity, not just the applicant's account
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: precisely which elements of the original submission changed following officer advice during the application
“Prior to allowing full replacement of the door and frame, we would need to see it is in poor condition (not suitable for part-retention and use of traditional joinery repair methods). We have secured this through an amending condition”
20/01398/LBC
“Although other parts of the building were in other uses and/or open plan for periods of time, our records indicate that flat 44 (and the flats above and below it) have been flats since 1897.”
20/01494/FULL
“The proposals originally included extensive internal works including the demolition of what appear to be original partitions which would have resulted in the loss of the traditional plan form. Also the installation of a sprinkler/mist system. Following officer advice, these works have been omitted”
20/01494/FULL
Measured from 301 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 301 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 301 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.