Claire Whelan.
Last recorded decision Aug 2020 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 98% across 43 decided planning applications, spanning 9 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.
Whelan's caseload is dominated by rear/roof extensions and window/AC alterations, and she is distinctive for citing the application SITE'S OWN previous approval for a similar proposal under its own historic reference alongside multiple named neighbouring precedent addresses in the same paragraph, combining site history and terrace-wide pattern in a single justification. On roof outlook impacts she occasionally states a specific percentage figure for outlook worsening (e.g. 'not worsen the outlook... by any more than 15%') rather than a bare pass/fail against the 45-degree test.
· combines the application site's OWN previous approval for a similar scheme under its own historic reference with multiple named neighbouring precedent addresses in the same justification, rather than relying on either alone
· occasionally quantifies outlook impact as a specific percentage figure (e.g. 'not worsen... by any more than 15%') rather than a bare pass/fail against the 45-degree criterion
· cites several (three or more) named comparable extensions with their own application references along the same terrace to establish precedent for a proposal type
· whether the application site itself has a previous approval for a similar proposal under its own historic reference, in addition to neighbouring precedent
· the specific percentage figure by which a proposal would worsen outlook from an affected neighbouring window
· multiple (not just one) named comparable extensions along the same terrace with their own application references
“Comparable second floor extension can be seen at 24 Finlay Street (2014/02699/FUL) and 35 Finlay Street (2014/00224/FUL) so precedent for this type of development has already been established. In addition, the application site has received previous approval for a similar proposal in 2015 (2015/00544/FUL).”
2020/00005/FUL
“The proposal will also not worsen the outlook of the rear facing window at 1 Irene Road by any more than 15%.”
2020/00740/FUL
Measured from 20 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 20 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 9 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020.[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, 2020. · 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 20 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.