Frederica Cooney.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 77% across 525 decided planning applications, spanning 14 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×.
Cooney's reports cover larger, more technically complex St John's Wood/Bayswater/Notting Hill schemes — basement excavations, mansard/rear extensions, hotel conversions — and are the most granular in this corpus on cross-referencing planning history, testing a proposal directly against the immediately preceding permitted scheme where one exists ('the principal difference between the current and the permitted schemes is...'). She engages substantively with third-party technical consultees (Building Control, Highways, Waste, Arboricultural Officer) by name and records their specific findings rather than summarising them, and is willing to push back on a consultee's requested condition where she judges it unreasonable for the scale of the works. On design, she pays close attention to a terrace's collective architectural rhythm (whether a building's side and rear elevations already read as historically altered/neutral, or whether the terrace was 'originally designed to appear as a unified set') to decide whether departure from the host building's original form is acceptable.
· directly compares a new application to the immediately preceding permitted scheme for the same site, isolating exactly what has changed rather than reassessing from a blank slate
· names individual technical consultees (Building Control Officer, Highways Planning Manager, Waste Project Officer, Arboricultural Manager) and records their specific finding, rather than a generic 'no objections raised'
· will explicitly decline to impose a consultee-requested condition where she judges it unreasonable given the scale of works ('it is considered unreasonable to recommend a condition to secure these details')
· assesses a terrace's collective architectural unity/rhythm to decide whether a rear/side elevation's departure from the original form is acceptable, distinguishing already-altered ('neutral contribution') fabric from historically important fabric
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact delta between the current application and the most recent permitted scheme for the same site
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a named technical consultee's specific finding (structural methodology review, daylight/sunlight BRE test result) rather than a generic sign-off
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a terrace's rear/side elevations are historically important fabric or already-altered 'neutral' fabric before allowing further change
“The principal different between the current and the permitted schemes is the complete demolition of the existing building behind the front fa�ade; the resultant form of the building will be as permitted in 2019.”
20/01191/FULL
“The Waste Project Officer has stated that the drawings submitted are not in line with the Council's requirements however considering the application site is a single family dwelling house it is considered unreasonable to recommend a condition to secure these details.”
20/01191/FULL
“Given the presence of similar extensions on the terrace, it is considered that the proposal, if refused, could not be defended at appeal on amenity grounds.”
20/01292/FULL
Measured from 424 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 424 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 rows
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 424 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.