Development Intent
AtlasWestminsterOfficersWilliam Philps
Planning Atlas›Westminster›William Philps
Case officer · Westminster Planning

William Philps.

Last recorded decision Apr 2021 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 75% across 101 decided planning applications, spanning 11 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer101 decisions75% 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 →
101
Applications
2020–21
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%83%202067%2021
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate75% · 71st 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 reports62 officer reports parsed
11%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
16%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
7%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
81%
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.

Trees & landscape
1.83× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.71× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.59× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.38× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.3× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Philps consistently benchmarks new overlooking impact against what already exists ('no worse than the overlooking from the existing fenestration'), treating existing conditions as the baseline for judging harm rather than an absolute standard. On sports/leisure facility lighting he cites a specific published technical guidance document by name (the ILP 'Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light') and its specific measured parameters (mounting height, tilt angle) to support a conclusion, rather than a general assurance.

Observable habits

· benchmarks a new proposal's overlooking impact against what ALREADY exists from current fenestration, treating 'no worse than existing' as the operative test rather than an absolute no-overlooking standard

· cites a specific named technical guidance document (ILP obtrusive light guidance) and its precise measured parameters (mounting height, tilt angle) as the evidential basis for an amenity conclusion

· assesses applications in the absence of a site visit where photographs plus original submission documents are judged sufficient, stating this explicitly

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a new overlooking impact is 'no worse than' what already exists from current fenestration

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific named technical guidance document and its precise measured parameters supporting an amenity conclusion

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether photographs plus submission documents are sufficient to assess an application absent a site visit

Assigned William Philps 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 overlooking of adjoining properties from the proposed fenestration is considered to be no worse than the overlooking from the existing fenestration on the application site”

20/00050/FULL

“The LED fittings have a mounting height of 6.7 metres, they will be facing downwards towards the court surface at a tilt angle of less than 15 degrees”

20/00107/FULL

Measured from 62 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 62 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

ENV 13
26 times cited
S14
21 times cited
H3
18 times cited
ENV 6
15 times cited
DES 1
12 times cited
DES 5
11 times cited
DES 9
9 times cited
S29
7 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
17
86%
15
93%
12
50%
12
45%
10
63%
9
100%
7
86%
7
100%
6
50%
4
50%
2
100%
17
86%
15
93%
12
50%
Show all 11 rows
12
45%
10
63%
9
100%
7
86%
7
100%
6
50%
4
50%
2
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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
21/02143/FULL
Full Planning Permission Application
Approved
2021-07-23
21/02177/FULL
Full Planning Permission Application
Approved
2021-07-09
21/02143/FULL
Full Planning Permission Application
Approved
2021-07-23
21/02177/FULL
Full Planning Permission Application
Approved
2021-07-09
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 101 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Jon Dingle Ltd
2. Aspect Property Services Limited
3. White Red Architects
4. Hayward Smart Architects
At a glance
OfficerWilliam Philps
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications101 (2020–21)
Approval rate75%
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, 2020–21. · 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 62 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.