Heidi Pearce.
Recently active — last recorded decision Oct 2025
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 91% across 192 decided planning applications, spanning 15 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×.
Pearce's very high-significance listed-building casework (Victoria Palace Theatre, St James's Palace, Albert Hall Mansions) is methodical about a space's specific documented alteration chronology (a 1950s lateral conversion, post-war bomb-damage reconstruction) to decide how much further intervention is acceptable, and is comfortable accepting a passenger lift in a listed building where the interior has already been 'severely compromised' by earlier alterations — a departure she would 'often resist' elsewhere. She credits negotiated retention outcomes (original doors kept and stored for future reinstatement rather than discarded) as a genuine heritage benefit of the negotiation process.
· maps a space's specific documented alteration chronology (a 1950s lateral conversion, post-war reconstruction) to decide how much further intervention that part of the building can bear
· accepts an intervention she would 'often resist' in a pristine listed interior (a passenger lift) where the space has already been severely compromised by earlier authorised alterations
· credits a negotiated retention outcome (original fabric such as doors kept and stored for future reinstatement, rather than discarded) as a genuine benefit secured through negotiation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a space's specific documented alteration chronology, to judge exactly how much further intervention is acceptable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an interior has already been so heavily altered that an otherwise-resisted intervention (a lift) becomes acceptable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether original fabric removed during negotiation is retained/stored for future reinstatement rather than discarded
“The installation of a passenger lift would often be resisted in the context of a listed building of this type. However, in this particular case the interior has been heavily altered and is”
20/01303/LBC
“Following negotiations, the applicant has agreed to retain the doors within the building. The doors are to be stored within a rehearsal room until they can be incorporated into a future project when required”
20/00085/LBC
Measured from 142 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 142 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 15 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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, 2020–25. · 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 142 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.