Development Intent
AtlasWestminsterOfficersShaun Retzback
Case officer · Westminster Planning

Shaun Retzback.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 90% across 464 decided planning applications, spanning 5 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer464 decisions90% approvalSave
Westminster · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
464
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%91%202092%202190%202288%202397%202485%202585%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate90% · 39th of 76
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports348 officer reports parsed
10%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
9%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
4%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
87%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Westminster's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Westminster reports. Attention, not stance.

Outlook & amenity
1.47× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.47× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.39× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.33× borough avg
Character & heritage
0.85× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Retzback's caseload includes a distinct specialism in Certificate of Lawful Development applications (both proposed-use GPDO permitted-development certificates and existing-use 10-year-immunity certificates), alongside office/retail floorspace extensions in the Core CAZ. On CLEUD work his reasoning is evidentiary rather than design-led: he weighs statutory declarations from named individuals, business rates/council tax records, and prior planning history as proof of a use's duration, and explicitly cites comparable appeal decisions from elsewhere in Westminster (and occasionally other boroughs) as persuasive precedent for how a use class should be characterised. On office/retail extensions he leans on the City Plan's strategic floorspace targets (S20's office floorspace target, S6's Core CAZ mixed-use role) as the framing policy driver rather than site-specific design first.

Observable habits

· on CLEUD applications, weighs statutory declarations from named individuals (with their role and length of association with the premises) as the primary evidence, alongside business rates/council tax records

· cites comparable Planning Inspectorate appeal decisions (sometimes from other London boroughs) as persuasive precedent for how a use or activity should be classified

· frames office/retail floorspace extensions against the City Plan's strategic floorspace targets and CAZ policy role before considering site-specific design

· records design amendments made during the application in response to the Design Officer's specific concerns, naming the officer role rather than just 'concerns were raised'

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: named statutory declarations with the declarant's role and length of association, plus independent corroborating records (business rates, prior planning history)

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a directly comparable Inspectorate appeal decision on a similar use/premises to anchor the use-class judgement

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a floorspace increase serves the City Plan's stated strategic office/CAZ targets

Assigned Shaun Retzback on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

The Inspector concluded in their appeal decision that the use at 105 Baker Street overall is consistent with Class A1 of the Order and agree that there is an element of other activity within the appellant's format.

20/00208/CLEUD

The City Council has no evidence which contradicts the information submitted regarding the use of the premises.

20/00524/CLEUD

The proposal has been amended throughout the course of this application to address concerns with the front facade of the building raised by the Design Officer.

20/00376/FULL

Measured from 348 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 348 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DES 5
6 times cited
DES 1
5 times cited
DES 9
5 times cited
S14
4 times cited
DES 6
4 times cited
ENV13
3 times cited
S29
3 times cited
ENV 7
3 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
26/02047/FULL
Full Planning Permission Application
Refused
2026-06-05
25/03778/LBC
Listed Building Consent Application
Approved
2026-06-04
26/02047/FULL
Full Planning Permission Application
Refused
2026-06-05
25/03778/LBC
Listed Building Consent Application
Approved
2026-06-04
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 464 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. DP9 Ltd
2. Montagu Evans LLP
3. Gerald Eve LLP
4. Rolfe Judd Planning
At a glance
OfficerShaun Retzback
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications464 (2020–26)
Approval rate90%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [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. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 348 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.