Priscilla Ogie.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 89% across 1,506 decided planning applications, spanning 3 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×.
Ogie's caseload is concentrated in Mayfair/Marylebone listed-building and shopfront/signage work under the newer City Plan 2019-2040 numbered-policy framework (policies 38/39/40/43) rather than the older S-code/DES-code UDP vocabulary most other officers in this corpus still cite, suggesting a later-dated caseload. Her refusals are unusually thorough for a delegated report — she works methodically through the statutory Section 66/72 tests, the applicant's own evidence, and any related enforcement history before reaching a conclusion, and is willing to refuse retrospective/already-implemented works even where the underlying principle might otherwise be acceptable, treating the fact of unauthorised implementation as a live consideration. She distinguishes carefully between architectural elements that are 'key' focal features of a listed building (which attract a harder line) and secondary elements like plain shopfront windows (where change is more tolerated).
· on refusals, explicitly quotes the statutory Section 66/72 test and the specific numbered City Plan/Neighbourhood Plan policy before applying it to the facts, rather than asserting harm first
· distinguishes between a building's 'key architectural features' (given a harder line) and secondary/replaceable elements (where alteration is more readily accepted)
· treats retrospective/already-implemented unauthorised works as a live consideration in the assessment, cross-referencing the parallel enforcement case reference
· tests colour/material choices against the 'unified characteristic' of the wider streetscape (e.g. railings 'almost exclusively black') rather than assessing the change in isolation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the disputed element is a 'key architectural feature' or focal point versus a secondary, already-altered part of the building
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether works have already been implemented without consent, and the status of any linked enforcement case
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: consistency with the wider streetscape's 'unified characteristic' (colour, material) rather than judging a change on its own terms
“external railings to the frontage of buildings are almost exclusively black in colour. This is a unified characteristic of the area, with the street itself having numbers of black external railings, and a strong part of the significance of the conservation”
23/02755/LBC
“The existing corner entrance, with the octagonal corner towers above is a key architectural feature of the listed building, and focal point in long distances views of the building down both Mount Street and South Audley Street.”
23/04394/LBC
“Without 24-hour survey, we cannot categorically say that the lowest background noise level, which informs the design criteria, is between the hours or 01:00 and 04:00 as we have no empirical data to back this up.”
22/05429/FULL
Measured from 1026 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 1026 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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, 2021–26. · 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 1026 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.