LPA Profile
What we hold on a single planning authority: appeal behaviour, what they refuse on, which policies they cite, and how current their local plan is. For the national league table and 47-year statistical history, see Council Performance. New: which refusal reasons survive appeal here — measured from real Inspectorate decision letters.
Westminster City Council
GSS E09000033 · Portal: idox (ok) · council register
Official statistics — is development moving through the system?
MHCLG quarterly planning returns (PS1/PS2), last 4 quarters 2025 Q3 to 2026 Q2, and the government's latest Housing Delivery Test. These are the authority's own statutory returns, not our scrape.
Peer ranks compare only London boroughs with more than 50 decisions in the window, the same floor as the national rank. A rank among peers is the fairer read: types of authority carry very different caseloads.
| Type | Decisions | Approved | In time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Major | 25 | 96.0% | 66.7% |
| Minor | 1,766 | 85.8% | 75.1% |
| Other | 3,011 | 86.3% | — |
| of which householder | 366 | 82.0% | 66.1% |
Delivery at or above 95%: no HDT consequence.
| Dataset | Publisher | Covers this authority | Loaded | Official source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning application decisions (PS2) | MHCLG | 1979 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (189 quarters) | 25 Oct 2026 · 68,583 rows nationally | Live tables |
| Planning application flow (PS1) | MHCLG | 1979 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (189 quarters) | 25 Oct 2026 · 42,861 rows nationally | Live tables |
| Housing Delivery Test 2025 | MHCLG | 2022/23 to 2024/25 | 18 Aug 2026 | Measurement |
What this authority refuses on
Classified from the reasons in decision notices we hold for this council. Categories can overlap — one reason often engages more than one issue.
| Objection type | Reasons |
|---|---|
| Design, scale or layout | 1 |
| Principle of development | 1 |
How this council decides
Measured against the published determination target on 2,172 decisions. Average window from valid date to target: 54 days (the statutory period is 56 days for most applications, 91 for majors).
(4+ days before target)
(final 3 days)
(after the target)
valid date to decision
This authority determines most applications AFTER the statutory target. Plan for the target date to be a starting point rather than a deadline, and expect to be asked for an extension of time.
Which day applications are submitted, validated and decided
| Submitted (n=2,172) | Validated (n=2,172) | Decided (n=2,172) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mon | 22.1% | 22.1% | 16% | |||
| Tue | 19.6% | 19.6% | 18.3% | |||
| Wed | 20.3% | 20.3% | 20.1% | |||
| Thu | 19% | 19% | 26.9% | |||
| Fri | 18.1% | 18.1% | 18.6% | |||
| Sat | 0.6% | 0.6% | 0% | |||
An even working week is 20% a day. Amber marks a day carrying 26% or more. Submitted is the date the council received the application; validated is the date it was made valid and the clock started. All three columns use the same applications, so they can be read across.
By application type
| Type | Decisions | Before deadline | On deadline day | Late | Average days |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approval of details reserved by a condition (d | 472 | 46% | 3% | 51% | 73 |
| All Other | 283 | 23% | 2% | 75% | 119 |
| Listed building consent | 248 | 18% | 2% | 80% | 95 |
| Tree works: Trees in conservation areas/subjec | 246 | 65% | 2% | 33% | 42 |
| Full planning & listed building consent | 219 | 6% | 2% | 92% | 147 |
| Full planning permission | 196 | 5% | 2% | 93% | 145 |
| Consent to display an advertisement | 195 | 48% | 5% | 48% | 62 |
| Non-Material Amendment | 61 | 3% | 5% | 92% | 74 |
Delegated vs committee
| Route | Decisions | Before deadline | On deadline day | Late | Average days |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delegated | 2,074 | 30% | 3% | 67% | 94 |
| Committee | 17 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 244 |
What "after the target" means. Published data cannot distinguish an agreed extension of time from a target that was simply missed — both appear the same way. This measures when the decision was issued relative to the statutory target, and nothing more. Deadline data comes from the council's own published determination target, captured where its portal exposes it (Idox councils and the London Datahub).
Case officers in our data
| Officer | Applications | Decided | Approved | Refused | Withdrawn | Approval rate | Average days | Late | Mostly handles | Seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nikki Mitchell | 21 | 21 | 16 | 4 | 0 | 80% | 14 | — | Advert Application (ADV) (7) | Jul 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Ms Priscilla Ogie | 13 | 13 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 77% | 14 | — | Advert Application (ADV) (4) | Aug 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Elaine Gonul | 11 | 11 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 64% | 23 | — | Approval of Details (Full PP) (4) | Jun 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Rosalie Dobson | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 100% | 24 | — | Applic. for works to trees in CA (2) | Aug 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Richard Langston | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 50% | 19 | — | Approval of Details (Full PP) (1) | Sep 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Central Planning Team | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | — | 4 | — | Approval of Details (ADLBC) (1) | Jul 2026 – Jul 2026 |
| Jamie Newman | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 204 | — | Applic. for works to trees in CA (1) | Feb 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Jennie Humphrey | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 34 | — | Listed Building Consent Application (1) | Jul 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| Seana McCaffrey | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 17 | — | Non-material amendments (1) | Jul 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| Susanna Miller | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 74 | — | Listed Building Consent Application (1) | Jul 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Zulekha Hosenally | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 32 | — | Certificate of Lawfulness (proposed) (1) | Aug 2026 – Sep 2026 |
Counts come from the applications we have scraped, which is a fraction of each officer's caseload. Approval rate is approvals as a share of approvals plus refusals; withdrawn and other outcomes are excluded. Average days runs from the validated date to the decision. Late is the share decided after the published determination target, shown only where we hold a target for at least five of that officer's decisions. "Mostly handles" is the application type they appear on most often. Treat as a sample of who is active, not as a performance measure of an individual: a caseload of majors runs longer than one of householder applications. Click a name for the full officer profile.
Agents most active here
| Agent / firm | Applications | Decided | Approved | Refused | Withdrawn | Success rate | Average days | Mostly brings | Seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newmark | 9 | 9 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 100% | 12 | Approval of Details (Full PP) (4) | Jul 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Firstplan | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 12 | Listed Building Consent Application (2) | Oct 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Kotak Design | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0% | 8 | Advert Application (ADV) (2) | Aug 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Studio Nahorniak | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 12 | Advert Application (ADV) (1) | Aug 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| PARKER ASSOCIATES LIMITED | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 14 | LBC Applic. Council's Own Dev. (1) | Jul 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| Architecture Design Limited | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 6 | Advert Application (ADV) (1) | Aug 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Hyphen Archi Ltd | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 28 | Advert Application (ADV) (1) | Aug 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Lucy Wood Architects | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 76 | Full Planning Permission Application (1) | Jun 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Treecare Ltd | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | — | 33 | Applic. for works to trees in CA (1) | Aug 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Sy2 Planning | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 18 | Non-material amendments (1) | Sep 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Smith Jenkins Ltd | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 18 | Approval of Details (Full PP) (1) | Sep 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Lucy Willcox Garden Design | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 27 | Approval of Details (Full PP) (1) | Sep 2026 – Oct 2026 |
Success rate is approvals as a share of approvals plus refusals; withdrawn and other outcomes are excluded, so an agent who withdraws rather than takes a refusal will look stronger than the raw numbers suggest. Average days runs from the validated date to the decision. "Mostly brings" is the application type the firm appears on most often, which explains much of the difference: tree works and conditions discharge are approved far more often than new build. Counts are from the applications we have scraped, not the firm's full workload.
Development plan
Westminster City Plan 2019-2040
Adopted 2021-04-21 · plan period 2019-01-01–2040-01-01
Plan documents
National statistics for this authority →
Councils with data on file
On the numbers. The refusal rate, officers and agents here are computed from the applications PlanningCore has collected for this authority — for most councils that is a recent sample rather than the full register, and the date range above tells you which. The appeal overturn rate comes from Planning Inspectorate decisions and covers a much longer period. Use the national statistics page for complete, official volumes.
About this tool: LPA Profile
Deep-dive authority analysis — approval rates by type, refusal reason clustering, appeal overturn rates, average decision times, and strictness rankings.
Use to understand how your LPA behaves. Every council has different tendencies — some are design-focused, some are policy-strict, some are more pragmatic.
MHCLG planning statistics, appeal decision analysis
Use these tools to understand how your Local Planning Authority behaves — what they approve, what they refuse, how often appeals succeed, and what strategy gives you the best chance. This is behavioural intelligence, not just policy research.
Guidance to help you prepare — not formal planning advice. Check the current policy text and your council's local plan before relying on it.