Ian Corrie.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 86% across 183 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×.
Corrie is exacting about checking whether a design element already accepted under a directly comparable PRIOR permission on the same site remains 'in keeping' when it changes in the new application, allowing an element that departs from a predominant local pattern only where it precisely matches the EXISTING building's own form (not the wider street's). He notes explicitly where an open enforcement case exists for unauthorised commenced works, records that they have since stopped pending the outcome of the current application, and negotiates ground-floor extension elements out of a scheme entirely in response to a neighbour's overlooking objection.
· checks whether a design element already accepted under a directly comparable prior permission for the same site remains in keeping when the detailed design changes in a resubmission
· accepts a departure from the wider street's predominant pattern only where it precisely matches the EXISTING building's own specific form, not the street generally
· records an open enforcement case for unauthorised commenced works explicitly, noting that works have since stopped pending the outcome of the current application
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a changed design element remains in keeping with what was already accepted under a directly comparable prior permission for the same site
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed departure from the wider street's pattern matches the EXISTING building's own specific form
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an open enforcement case for unauthorised works has been halted pending the outcome of the current application
“Whilst this is not in keeping with the predominant Item No. pattern of roof forms on this side of the mews, given that it matches the height and form of the existing building, the proposed rear treatment would not cause any further harm”
20/00790/FULL
“There is currently an open enforcement case at the application site relating to the commencment of building works prior to the determination of this application (21/73800/M)”
20/01177/FULL
Measured from 126 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 126 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 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 126 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.