Fergus Wong.
Last recorded decision Jun 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 88% across 97 decided planning applications, spanning 12 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×.
Wong is precise about the Sui Generis/C3 distinction for canal moorings, testing whether a proposed change of use (residential to short-term let) breaches a specific named policy (DES13) even where the formal use class doesn't change on paper. On basement/extension applications he cross-references OTHER pending applications for the same property explicitly by reference to avoid inconsistent or duplicative assessment, and records negotiated design changes (a flat roof changed to sloped, sliding doors reduced in size) made specifically to avoid the need for re-consultation.
· tests a use change against a specific named policy (DES13 for canal moorings) even where the formal use class does not change on paper, focusing on the functional character of the change
· cross-references OTHER pending applications for the same property explicitly by reference to avoid inconsistent or duplicative assessment
· records negotiated design changes (a flat roof changed to sloped, doors reduced in size) made specifically to avoid the need for re-consultation with neighbours
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a use change breaches a specific named policy's functional test, even where the formal use class doesn't change on paper
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: other pending applications for the same property, cross-referenced explicitly to avoid inconsistent assessment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a negotiated design change was significant enough to require re-consultation, or minor enough not to
“The change of use of the mooring from long-term residential to a commercial mooring, to offer short-term letting accommodation, does not comply with policy DES 13”
20/00027/FULL
“There are two other planning applications relating to this property that are currently pending consideration at the time of this decision”
20/00496/FULL
Measured from 68 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 68 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 12 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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, 2020–21. · 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 68 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.