Eleanor Grace.
Active — last recorded decision Nov 2025
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 85% across 195 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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×.
Grace refuses replacement-door applications on Bayswater listed terraces where the material is uPVC ('a modern, oil-based material') across multiple near-identical applications, treating this as a firm material-class rejection regardless of the specific flooding justification offered, and distinguishes historic four-panelled doors (highest protection) from later modern replacement doors when weighing loss. On retrospective enforcement cases she credits specific improvements made since a prior refusal (added glazing-bar detail, contextual information) while still flagging remaining concerns (oversized rooflights) for further revision.
· refuses uPVC replacement doors on listed buildings as a firm material-class rejection ('a modern, oil-based material... out of keeping'), applied consistently across multiple near-identical applications regardless of the flooding justification offered
· distinguishes historic multi-panelled original doors (highest protection, loss 'not justified') from later modern replacement doors already lacking historic interest when weighing acceptability
· on retrospective/enforcement cases, credits specific improvements made since a prior refusal (added technical detail, contextual justification) while still flagging remaining specific concerns for further revision
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed replacement material is uPVC, treated as a firm rejection regardless of the underlying justification (e.g. flood damage)
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a door/feature being replaced is historic original fabric or an already-modern later replacement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: specific improvements made since a prior refusal on the same site, while still identifying remaining unresolved concerns
“Upvc is a modern, oil-based material and it would create a bulky door design and profiles out of keeping with the host building”
23/03729/FULL
“The existing doors are historic, of traditional materials and design and contribute positively to the significance of the listed building, wider group of listed buildings and the conservation area. Their loss has not been justified”
23/03735/FULL
Measured from 94 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 cited most on decision notices for applications Eleanor Grace decided — 17 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–25.[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, 2022–25. · 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 94 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.