Susanna Miller.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 85% across 304 decided planning applications, spanning 11 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×.
Miller regularly deals with RETROSPECTIVE/unauthorised alterations to listed buildings, itemising each specific unauthorised change room by room and floor by floor before concluding whether the departure from the consented layout is nonetheless acceptable in design terms. She is unusually willing to name where 'works were started before authorisation had been given' or a scheme was carried out 'not in an acceptable manner', then credits subsequent negotiation for reaching an acceptable outcome, but refuses outright where the harm to a principal historic space (a staircase) is judged unacceptable in principle regardless of detailed mitigation.
· itemises each specific unauthorised/retrospective alteration room by room and floor by floor before concluding on the overall acceptability of the departure from a consented layout
· names explicitly where works began without authorisation or were not carried out properly, then credits subsequent negotiation and additional information for reaching an acceptable outcome
· refuses outright where harm to a principal historic space (an open-well staircase) is judged unacceptable IN PRINCIPLE, regardless of mitigating detail such as a mirrored finish
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each specific unauthorised alteration, itemised room by room and floor by floor, before judging overall acceptability
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether works began without authorisation or were carried out unsatisfactorily, and what subsequent negotiation resolved
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed intervention harms a principal historic space in principle, regardless of detailed mitigating finishes
“Works were started before authorisation had been given and unfortunatly not carried out in an acceptable manner. Following negotiation and further clarificaton, the proposals for the renovation of the facade are now acceptable”
20/00502/LBC
“the installation of a lift in this location is unacceptable in principle. In detailed design terms the use of a mirrored finish does nothing to hide or disguise the harm caused to the special interest of the building”
20/04169/LBC
Measured from 202 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 202 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 11 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 202 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.