David Dorward.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 99% across 128 decided planning applications, spanning 7 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×.
Dorward handles large institutional/heritage redevelopments (Royal College of Surgeons, national heritage estate buildings) and precisely tracks the delta between a previously approved scheme's floorspace figures and the currently proposed reduced figures, using specific efficiency percentages to demonstrate why a smaller footprint still functions. On permitted-development prior-approval notifications he works through the specific named exclusion criteria one by one, confirming the site does not fall within any that would bar the development.
· tracks the precise numeric delta between a previously approved scheme's floorspace and the currently reduced proposal, citing specific efficiency percentages to demonstrate the smaller footprint still functions
· works through prior-approval GPDO exclusion criteria one by one, confirming explicitly that a site does not fall within any listed exclusion before granting
· amends a pre-commencement condition's exact wording (from 'no demolition or development' to 'no groundworks') to protect a specific interest (archaeology) without unnecessarily blocking unrelated works
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise numeric floorspace delta between a previously approved scheme and the current reduced proposal, with efficiency percentages supporting functionality
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: confirmation, criterion by criterion, that a site does not fall within any GPDO exclusion barring prior-approval development
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a condition's precise wording can be narrowed to protect one specific interest without blocking unrelated works
“the efficiency of the retained portion of the Barry building was significantly increased to 72%… This led to an overall increase in floor plate efficiency of approximately 30%”
20/02291/FULL
“The site does not fall within any of the categories listed under C1. (a)-(e) which would not permit development”
20/05793/APA
Measured from 90 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 90 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
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 90 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.