Sarah De La Coze.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 93% across 70 decided planning applications, spanning 2 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×.
De La Coze treats an already-existing level of mutual overlooking (between a flat and a shared courtyard) as the baseline against which a proposed intensification is judged, consistently concluding a scheme 'would not increase overlooking to an unacceptable level' rather than requiring zero additional overlooking. She checks whether a near-identical scheme was PREVIOUSLY approved for the same site but never implemented, treating that unimplemented precedent as strong support for re-approving the same design.
· treats already-existing mutual overlooking (a shared courtyard, existing rear windows) as the baseline, judging only whether a proposal materially INCREASES it beyond that existing level
· checks whether a near-identical scheme was previously approved for the same site but never implemented, treating that unimplemented precedent as strong support for re-approving the same design
· credits a negotiated amendment (removing a shared walkway, changing a glass balustrade to metal) made specifically to reduce a neighbour's overlooking objection
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposal materially increases overlooking beyond an already-existing baseline level, not whether any overlooking exists at all
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a near-identical scheme previously approved (even if unimplemented) for the same site
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: specific negotiated amendments made during the application to reduce a neighbour's overlooking objection
“This level of overlooking is already in existence with the first floor flat, officers therefore consider that the creation of a single 4 bed dwelling in place of the existing office and first floor flat would not increase overlooking to an unacceptable level”
24/04358/FULL
“A proposal for a single storey garden room of the exact same size and height was previously approved ref. 13/12915/FULL but the proposal was never implemented”
24/04687/FULL
Measured from 37 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 37 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–26.[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, 2024–26. · 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 37 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.