Richard Langston.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 86% across 465 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×.
Langston's caseload mixes basement CLEUD/lawful-commencement evidence cases with infill/vacant-site development where an established planning history (expired or previously-approved schemes on the same site) becomes the reference point for what is acceptable. On CLEUD lawful-commencement cases he works through the case-law tests for what constitutes a 'material operation' methodically before weighing the applicant's evidence (affidavits, dated photos, correspondence) against what the Council's own records can corroborate. On infill sites with a long planning history, he treats previously-approved (even unimplemented/expired) schemes as having 'established the principle' of specific design parameters — building line, massing — that a fresh application can then rely on, even where the new scheme's exact form departs from them.
· on CLEUD lawful-commencement cases, works through the case-law definition of a 'material operation' before assessing whether the applicant's affidavit/photographic evidence satisfies it
· weighs applicant-submitted evidence (affidavits, dated correspondence) against what the Council's own records can independently corroborate, noting explicitly when the two diverge
· treats expired or unimplemented prior permissions on the same site as having 'established the principle' of specific parameters (building line, massing, use) that inform the current assessment
· separates overlooking mitigation into a nuanced by-window judgement (a high-level window can be excluded from an obscure-glazing condition) rather than a single blanket condition
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether documentary/affidavit evidence for a material operation is corroborated by the Council's own independent records, not just the applicant's own account
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: what design parameters a site's planning history (even expired/unimplemented permissions) has already 'established the principle' of
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a window-by-window (not blanket) judgement on overlooking, distinguishing high-level windows from habitable-room windows
“There is no record of the letter on the relevant Council records and therefore in itself it can be given very limited weigh”
20/00416/CLEUD
“The previous approvals have established the principle of the front building line abutting the pavement.”
20/00477/FULL
“As the two windows serving the main rooms are at high level (1.7m above floor level) it is considered that these would provide limited overlooking and therefore can be excluded from the requirement to be fixed shut in the condition.”
20/00477/FULL
Measured from 319 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 319 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 319 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.