Charles Cooksley.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 95% across 192 decided planning applications, spanning 5 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×.
Cooksley cites specific dismissed PLANNING INSPECTORATE APPEALS on comparable roof-terrace refusals in the same conservation area as direct precedent supporting a refusal, and measures the exact separation distance in metres from a proposed terrace balustrade to each affected neighbouring dwelling's front elevation to judge privacy harm. He checks a conservation area's own street-level pattern (which side of a mews already has mansard extensions, which does not) precisely before judging whether a proposed roof extension breaks or extends an established local group.
· cites specific dismissed Planning Inspectorate appeals on comparable roof-terrace refusals in the SAME conservation area as direct precedent supporting a current refusal
· measures the exact separation distance in metres from a proposed terrace balustrade to each individually affected neighbouring dwelling's front elevation to judge privacy harm
· maps precisely which specific run of properties on a mews already has mansard extensions versus which retains an unbroken traditional roofline before judging whether a new extension fits an established local group
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: specific dismissed Planning Inspectorate appeals on comparable schemes in the same conservation area
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact separation distance in metres from a terrace/balustrade to each individually affected neighbouring dwelling
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise pattern of which properties on a mews already have mansard extensions versus an unbroken traditional roofline
“Similar roof terraces to the one proposed have been refused when they have been found to be harmful to the Conservation Area they are located within. Appeals against these refusals have been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate including at 8 Wilfred Street (ref No. APP/X5990/D/18/3201539)”
24/00168/FULL
“From No. 34 Belgrave Mews South to the north all have a short run of existing mansard roof extensions. From from 19 Belgrave Place to no 32 Belgrave Mews South have a continuous traditional roof form set behind and below the parapet line and do not feature mansard roof exensions”
24/00779/FULL
Measured from 78 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 78 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[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, 2023–26. · 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 78 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.