Aurore Manceau.
Last recorded decision Jul 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 96% across 310 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×.
Manceau's caseload spans Belgravia embassy/townhouse casework and larger mixed-use commercial applications, and she consistently tests a new roof terrace or feature against the ESTABLISHED PATTERN of similar terraces already present on the same mews or square, treating consistency with that pattern (and a matching set-back distance) as the basis for accepting a new proposal even where mutual overlooking would result. On amended S.73/minor-material schemes she cross-references conditions from the ORIGINAL permission individually to confirm whether each remains appropriate given specific proposed changes (e.g. customer-number conditions, plant-noise conditions).
· tests a new roof terrace/feature against the established pattern of similar features already present on the same mews or square, including matching set-back distances, as the basis for acceptance
· accepts that mutual overlooking between neighbouring roof terraces/rear windows is an inherent and acceptable feature of a mews context rather than a fresh harm to be avoided
· cross-references each individual condition from an ORIGINAL permission (customer numbers, plant noise limits) to determine whether it remains appropriate given the specific proposed amendment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a new terrace/feature matches an established pattern (including set-back distance) of similar features already present nearby
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether mutual overlooking between neighbouring terraces is an accepted, inherent feature of the local context
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each individual condition from an original permission, checked one by one against a proposed amendment rather than reviewed as a block
“Given the prevailing context of roof terraces in the mews, including some reasonably recent permissions, terraces such as that proposed now form part of the established character of this part of Eaton Mews South”
20/03335/FULL
“Condition 8 of the original permission states: "You must not allow more than 114 customers in the basement bar, 34 customers in the 7th floor bar and 90 customers on the roof terrace at any one time."”
20/01844/FULL
Measured from 244 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 244 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
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.
- [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]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 244 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.