Kimberley Davies.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 87% across 225 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×.
Davies handles Central London mixed-use and basement schemes, and is meticulous about a site's precise, layered planning-permission history — noting which prior permissions were implemented versus lapsed, and which specific floor level a current application relates to within a multi-level building. She traces a public-art obligation across multiple failed and renegotiated routes (an original condition, an abandoned S106 contribution, a liquidated freeholder) rather than treating it as resolved, and refuses CLEUD applications where evidence of a claimed 10-year continuous use is 'insufficient and contradictory'.
· tracks a site's precise, layered planning-permission history, distinguishing which prior permissions were implemented, lapsed, or only partially relate to the specific floor level under consideration
· traces an outstanding obligation (a public-art condition) across multiple failed or renegotiated routes over many years rather than treating it as automatically resolved by a later permission
· refuses a CLEUD application explicitly where evidence for a claimed long-term use is judged 'insufficient and contradictory' rather than merely incomplete
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a site's precise layered permission history, distinguishing implemented from lapsed permissions and which specific floor level each relates to
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the current status of an outstanding S106/planning obligation across its full renegotiation history
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether evidence for a claimed long-term use is sufficient and internally consistent, not merely present
“a unilateral undertaking was drafted which would have seen the applicant making a financial contribution of �15,000, it appears that the freeholder went into liquidation and this application was never completed”
20/01249/FULL
“Refuse certificate - insufficient and contradictory evidence”
20/02269/CLEUD
Measured from 190 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 190 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 190 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.