Andrew Barber.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 98% across 313 decided planning applications, spanning 16 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×.
Barber's high-significance listed-building casework (Buckingham Palace, Paddington Station, Grade II Bayswater terraces) requires clear evidence that historic fabric is genuinely 'beyond reasonable repair' before accepting its replacement, and distinguishes a building's highest-significance state rooms from its most 'functional and modest' service spaces when judging how much intervention is acceptable. He is willing to refuse a resubmission that repeats the SAME design flaw (poor door design/size) that caused a directly preceding application on the same site to be refused.
· requires clear evidence that historic fabric is genuinely 'beyond reasonable repair' — its architectural value 'wholly compromised' — before accepting its replacement rather than repair
· distinguishes a building's highest-significance principal spaces from its most functional/modest service spaces (basement, attic) when judging how much intervention each part can bear
· refuses a resubmission that repeats the SAME specific design flaw (poor quality/oversized doors) that caused a directly preceding application on the same site to be refused
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: clear evidence that historic fabric is genuinely beyond reasonable repair before accepting its replacement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the specific part of a building being altered is a principal high-significance space or a functional/modest service space
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a resubmission repeats the SAME specific design flaw that caused a directly preceding application on the same site to be refused
“The condition of the steps is such that the architectural value of the steps is wholly compromised, to the degree that they in fact detract from the appearance of the listed building and conservation area”
20/01717/FULL
“This follows a previous application for similar proposals which was refused on conservation grounds, due to the poor design quality and size of new doors proposed then (RN: 20/02441/FULL and 20/0431/LBC)”
20/08144/FULL
Measured from 149 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 149 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 16 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 149 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.