Stuart Croll.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 94% across 2,396 decided planning applications, spanning 15 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×.
Croll's reports cover a similar central-London listed-building/conservation-area caseload to Mitchell's but with noticeably longer, more explanatory prose on refusals — he sets out the pre-existing streetscape pattern in detail (e.g. the prevailing dwarf-wall-and-railings boundary treatment) before explaining how a specific proposal departs from it. On approvals for minor works (secondary glazing, window/door replacement, plant installations) he is concise and leans on 'minor', 'minimal impact' and 'reversible' as the operative tests. He is comfortable refusing on design grounds even where a use is otherwise acceptable in principle, and separately flags outstanding technical objections (e.g. Waste Project Officer, Environmental Health) as grounds that would need resolving before support could be given.
· on refusals, describes the established streetscape/historic pattern first, then explains the specific way the proposal departs from or disrupts it
· for minor listed-building alterations, tests whether the feature being altered is itself a later, non-original addition before permitting its removal or replacement
· cross-references linked applications explicitly by reference number rather than restating the case ('Linked to 20/00731/ADV')
· cites conditions as the mechanism for resolving outstanding technical concerns (noise reports, bin capacity) rather than refusing outright where the principle is otherwise acceptable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an altered/added feature is itself a later, non-original intervention rather than part of the historic fabric
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the prevailing streetscape pattern (boundary treatment, fenestration style) against which a proposal is judged to conform or depart
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether technical objections (waste, noise) can be resolved by condition rather than requiring refusal
“These effects would together harm the architectural and historic interests of the listed building and character and appearance of the conservation area; in the absence of public benefits relating to the proposals, permission and listed building consent should therefore be refused in accordance with the Act.”
20/00108/FULL
“The proposal, to build a new bin store parallel with and in fact forming the front boundary, thereby replacing the railings, would by contrast present a broad expanse of solid wall, coupled with a flat 'roof' over the store.”
20/01211/FULL
“Whils the proposed secondary glazing is not a characteristic feature of a listed building, it is considered that this is a minor alteration that is reversible and thus would have a minimal impact on the special architectural or historic interest of this listed building.”
20/00113/LBC
Measured from 1851 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 1851 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 15 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 1851 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.