Seana McCaffrey.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 92% across 530 decided planning applications, spanning 10 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×.
McCaffrey handles larger householder and mixed-use extension/roof schemes concentrated in Knightsbridge, Covent Garden and Belgravia, and her recurring test is whether a proposal matches an 'established pattern of development' already set by neighbouring or adjacent permitted schemes on the same terrace/group. She is comfortable approving repeat/renewal applications that are identical to previously approved (and still extant) permissions, treating the earlier grant as a significant material consideration that largely resolves the case. Where a previous application on the same site was refused, she explicitly tracks how the current, revised scheme addresses that specific reason for refusal point by point, rather than treating it as a fresh case.
· tests a design proposal against the 'established pattern' already created by permitted works at neighbouring/adjacent properties in the same terrace or group
· treats an identical or near-identical extant prior permission as a strong material consideration that substantially pre-resolves a repeat/renewal application
· where a previous application on the same site was refused, quotes the specific reason for refusal and works through how the current scheme addresses it
· credits design changes made 'following officer advice' during the application (removed clutter, adjusted glazing pattern) as resolving an initial concern
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether neighbouring/adjacent properties in the same group already have the type of extension proposed, establishing a pattern the new scheme can follow
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a prior refusal's specific stated reason has been directly addressed by design changes in the current scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an extant prior permission for the same or a very similar scheme already exists on the site
“Permission has been granted for heavily glazed full width extensions at basement and ground floor levels at nos. 17, 19, 20 and 21 Trevor Place and as such, this treatment is now characteristic of this part of the group.”
20/00507/FULL
“The reason for refusal stated: 'Because of its appearance and poor relationship with the existing chimney and lightwell, the proposed new flue would harm the architectural and historic significance of this grade II listed building'. The current proposals have sought to address the previous reason for refusal by limiting the impact on the rear of the building”
20/01219/FULL
“The July 2017 approval remains extant and represents a significant material consideration in determination of the present planning application.”
20/01847/FULL
Measured from 392 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 392 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 10 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 392 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.