Development Intent
AtlasWestminsterOfficersAmanda Coulson
Case officer · Westminster Planning

Amanda Coulson.

Last recorded decision Apr 2024 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 93% across 47 decided planning applications, spanning 10 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer47 decisions93% approvalSave
Westminster · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
47
Applications
2020–24
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%100%2020100%202186%202292%2023100%2024
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate93% · 21st of 76
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports43 officer reports parsed
31%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
31%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
19%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
96%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Westminster's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Westminster reports. Attention, not stance.

Trees & landscape
3.85× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
1.13× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
0.91× borough avg
Materials & detailing
0.9× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Coulson tracks S106-linked cross-site sequencing conditions precisely (a legal agreement requiring one site's construction to reach practical completion BEFORE another linked site can be occupied) and checks whether that sequencing has actually been honoured. On basement schemes in Surface Water Hotspots she requires a specific Flood Risk Assessment addressed within the structural methodology statement, and is willing to accept that extending an already-altered feature (a first-floor side extension already present) is 'difficult to resist' precisely because the precedent already exists on the same building.

Observable habits

· tracks S106-linked cross-site sequencing obligations precisely (one site must reach practical completion before a linked site can be occupied) and checks whether that sequencing has actually been honoured

· requires a specific Flood Risk Assessment within the structural methodology statement for basement schemes in a designated Surface Water Hotspot before accepting sufficient information exists

· accepts extending an already-altered feature (an existing first-floor side extension) as 'difficult to resist' in design terms precisely because the precedent already exists on the same building

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an S106-linked cross-site sequencing obligation has actually been honoured before treating a permission as lawfully implemented

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific Flood Risk Assessment addressed within the structural methodology statement for a basement in a Surface Water Hotspot

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an already-altered feature on the SAME building sets a difficult-to-resist precedent for further extension

Assigned Amanda Coulson on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

the developer must not commence York Terrace East prior to the commencement of Chesterfield Lodge and implement and construct Chesterfield Lodge to practical completion prior to the occupation of York Terrace East

20/00172/CLEUD

given the existing first floor extension, extending this further is considered difficult to resist in design

21/03636/FULL

Measured from 43 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 43 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DES1
1 times cited
DES5
1 times cited
S29
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–24.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
23/05862/FULL
Full Planning Permission Application
Approved
2024-06-21
23/05438/LBC
Listed Building Consent Application
Approved
2024-06-21
23/05862/FULL
Full Planning Permission Application
Approved
2024-06-21
23/05438/LBC
Listed Building Consent Application
Approved
2024-06-21
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 47 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Donald Shearer Architects
2. Vital Energi
3. Gerald Eve LLP
4. Ridge & Partners LLP
At a glance
OfficerAmanda Coulson
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications47 (2020–24)
Approval rate93%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Westminster planning register and published decision notices, 2020–24. · methodology
  2. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 43 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.