Development Intent
AtlasWestminsterOfficersToby Cuthbertson
Case officer · Westminster Planning

Toby Cuthbertson.

Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026

A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 93% across 371 decided planning applications, spanning 15 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer371 decisions93% 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 →
371
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%100%202098%2021100%202288%202391%202490%202575%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate93% · 22nd 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 reports306 officer reports parsed
5%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
6%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
1%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
88%
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.

Character & heritage
1.58× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.35× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
0.7× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
0.63× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.52× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Cuthbertson's caseload is Mayfair/Portman Estate/Regent Street heritage casework with the highest approval rate seen among the top-volume officers in this corpus, and his reasoning is compact and confident: he typically identifies precisely what element of a building is actually listed or significant (a shopfront alone; the front rooms of a townhouse rather than the rear) and treats that narrow scope as the basis for readily approving works to everything outside it. He is comfortable approving works based on documentary precedent (a prior 2007 enforcement finding of no surviving special interest) even without a fresh site visit, and gives real weight to an established local practice of temporary public art in historic garden squares.

Observable habits

· identifies precisely what element of a building is actually listed/significant (e.g. 'listed for its shopfront only') and treats everything else as having a materially lower bar for change

· distinguishes a listed building's higher-significance spaces (grand front rooms) from lower-significance ones (rear rooms, altered basements) when judging whether a departure from scholarly reproduction is acceptable

· relies on documentary precedent (a prior enforcement-case finding on fabric significance) to reach a conclusion without a fresh site visit where the earlier finding remains applicable

· treats an established pattern of previous, similar temporary installations (e.g. sculptures by the same artist in the same historic square since 2013) as supporting a new application in the same vein

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise scope of what is actually listed or significant about a building, rather than treating the whole building as equally protected

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: documentary precedent (prior enforcement or assessment findings) on fabric significance that can stand in for a fresh site visit

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an established pattern of similar past approvals (same artist, same location) supporting consistency in a new decision

Assigned Toby Cuthbertson 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

143 New Bond Street is a grade II listed building in the Mayfair Conservation Area. The building is listed for its shopfront only.

20/00550/FULL

An application in 2007 following an enforcement case determined that there were no surviving features of special interest in the basement area. Therefore, though no site visit has been conducted, the works are considered to considered to be acceptable

20/01890/LBC

A number of sculptures by the same artist have been displayed in the square since 2013.

20/01375/FULL

Measured from 306 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 306 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

S33
3 times cited
ENV 7
2 times cited
ENV7
2 times cited
CM28.1
2 times cited
MD1
2 times cited
ENV6
1 times cited
MR5
1 times cited
MD2
1 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
26/02274/FULL
Full Planning Permission Application
Approved
2026-06-01
20/02489/LBC
Listed Building Consent Application
Approved
2026-05-26
26/02274/FULL
Full Planning Permission Application
Approved
2026-06-01
20/02489/LBC
Listed Building Consent Application
Approved
2026-05-26
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 371 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Rolfe Judd Planning
2. Montagu Evans
3. Gerald Eve LLP
4. Ink Associates
At a glance
OfficerToby Cuthbertson
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications371 (2020–26)
Approval rate93%
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 306 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.