Hayley White.
Last recorded decision Aug 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 87% across 118 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×.
White is precise about establishing an unlawful use's ACTUAL operating character via a personal site visit (finding more seating and alcohol service than shown on submitted plans), factoring that ground-truth finding into the use-class mix assessed rather than relying on the applicant's stated description. On roof terrace/dormer schemes to unlisted-but-conservation-area buildings, she benchmarks acceptability against a comparable feature already visible on the building directly OPPOSITE, and calculates the precise distance in metres to the nearest residential receptor to judge amenity impact.
· establishes an unlawful/disputed use's actual operating character via a personal site visit (finding more seating, undisclosed alcohol service) and factors that ground-truth finding into the use-class assessment rather than relying on the applicant's stated description
· benchmarks a roof terrace/dormer's acceptability against a comparable feature already visible on the building directly OPPOSITE or nearby
· calculates the precise distance in metres to the nearest residential receptor as the basis for an amenity/noise conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the actual operating character of a use, verified by personal site visit against what the submitted plans show
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a comparable feature already visible on a nearby or opposite building as the benchmark for a new roof terrace/dormer's acceptability
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise distance in metres to the nearest residential receptor as the basis for an amenity/noise conclusion
“the site visit demonstrated that the internal layout had more internal seating on site compared to as shown on the plans, with a cover capacity of at least 15 persons”
20/01281/FULL
“it is noted that the building opposite has a large roof terrace with a mansard roof and comparable dormers; due to its set back nature, both features would only be glimpsed from street level”
20/01290/FULL
Measured from 79 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 79 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
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 79 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.