Christopher May.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 93% across 177 decided planning applications, spanning 13 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 Hammersmith And Fulham reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
May's caseload includes a notable share of retail-to-residential conversions on protected shopping parades alongside standard extensions, and he is one of the few coded officers to run a full numbered section-by-section report structure ([Land Use], [Quality of Accommodation], [Design], [Residential Amenity], [Highways and Transport], [Flood Risk], [Contamination], [Air Quality]) rather than the compressed Key Principle checklist most colleagues use. On rear/side extensions in commercial or mixed-use terraces he treats an established pattern of neighbouring commercial premises already extended to the rear boundary as justifying a similar extension, departing from the residential norm that discourages building up to the rear boundary. He is precise about numeric floorspace retained in conversions (retail sqm before/after, percentage lost) as the basis for a viability finding.
· structures reports as full numbered sections (Land Use, Quality of Accommodation, Design, Residential Amenity, Highways and Transport, Flood Risk, Contamination, Air Quality) rather than a compressed Key Principle checklist
· on mixed-use/commercial terraces, treats a neighbouring pattern of commercial premises already extended to the rear boundary as justifying departure from the usual residential 'no build to rear boundary' norm
· states precise retained/lost retail floorspace in square metres and as a percentage of the total when assessing shopping-parade conversions, rather than a qualitative viability judgement
· whether a neighbouring pattern of commercial premises already extended to the rear boundary justifies a similar departure from the residential norm
· the precise retail floorspace retained and lost, in square metres and as a percentage, when assessing whether a retail-to-residential conversion is viable
· whether new windows or terraces would be no closer to opposing windows than the existing arrangement, and whether obscure glazing is needed to prevent unacceptable overlooking
“the application terrace is characterised by commercial premises which have all extended up to the rear boundary, with the exception of No.259 and No.257 New Kings Road. It is therefore considered, as it was previously in 2021, that the side and rear extensions would be in keeping with the existing pattern of development”
2023/01052/FUL
“Approximately 32sqm of retail space (representing 18% of the total area) would be lost at the rear of the ground floor”
2023/01052/FUL
Measured from 100 published Hammersmith And Fulham 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 100 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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 Hammersmith And Fulham planning register and published decision notices, 2022–26. · 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 Hammersmith And Fulham 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 100 published Hammersmith And Fulham 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.