John Wilman.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 77% across 532 decided planning applications, spanning 19 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×.
Wilman works heavily on listed-building/heritage casework in St John's Wood and Bayswater, and is notably candid about resubmission history: he routinely names the specific previous scheme that was refused, what changed in design terms, and whether that resolves the earlier objection point by point, rather than treating a resubmission as a fresh application. He weighs harm on a graduated NPPF scale ('a low degree of visual harm, in the less than substantial harm category') and explicitly tests whether public benefit outweighs that harm, rather than a binary acceptable/unacceptable framing. Like Sriramula, he flags when COVID-19 prevented a site visit and substitutes past visits/aerial photography as a stated evidential basis.
· names the specific prior refused scheme and states point by point how the resubmitted design addresses the original objection
· grades heritage harm on the NPPF's graduated scale (e.g. 'less than substantial harm') and explicitly weighs it against identified public benefit rather than a binary judgement
· distinguishes historically significant fabric from already-altered/'relatively modern' fabric within the same listed building when assessing internal works
· records when a site visit could not occur (COVID-19) and states the alternative evidential basis relied on (past visits, aerial photographs)
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific stated reason a prior scheme on the same site was refused, and whether the new design addresses it directly
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: where on the NPPF's harm spectrum ('less than substantial harm') a proposal sits, and what public benefit might outweigh it
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the part of a listed building being altered retains historic fabric or has already been altered/modernised
“There's a low degree of visual harm, in the 'less than substantial harm' category and it's more than outweighed by the public benefits of allowing disabled patrons to have access to the pitch side seating.”
20/01576/LBC
“This application follows a refusal of permission early in the year for a similar scheme with a simpler door design. That design was considered a diminution of the visual quality of the buildings and was refused permission. This scheme has been revised in terms of the design and additional information added”
20/02525/FULL
“Due to COVID 19 and the restrictions on travel , it has not been possible to visit the site .However officers have visited the house in the past .Therefore it has been possible to determine the application based on the information submitted with this application and aerial photographs.”
20/04063/FULL
Measured from 374 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 374 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 19 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 374 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.