Curtis Thompson.
Last recorded decision Jun 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 87% across 292 decided planning applications, spanning 12 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×.
Thompson's caseload includes a notable share of roof terraces and pod extensions negotiated through amendment during the application process, and he is distinctive for explicitly naming the two or more prior LPA reference numbers that established 'the principle of development' on a plot before assessing a new phase of extension, treating that established principle as carrying forward even where a specific numeric criterion (e.g. depth) is not strictly met. On roof terrace screening he tracks specific stepped-in or reduced dimensions negotiated during the application (e.g. screening stepped in 0.6m to better match a neighbouring approved terrace) as the basis for finding an amended scheme acceptable where the original would not have been.
· explicitly names two or more prior LPA application references that established 'the principle of development' on the same plot, and treats that principle as carrying forward to justify a new phase even where a specific numeric criterion is not strictly met
· tracks specific negotiated reductions during the application process (e.g. terrace screening stepped in a stated distance to better match an approved neighbouring terrace) as the basis for a final favourable finding
· on 45-degree-line breaches from a roof extension or terrace, checks whether the EXISTING back addition already breaches the line, framing the test as whether the new works would 'not worsen it'
· whether two or more prior LPA references on the same site already established 'the principle of development' being extended by the current phase
· the specific negotiated dimensional change (e.g. a stated stepped-in distance) made to a roof terrace or extension during the application, and whether it resolves the original objection
· whether the EXISTING back addition already breaches the 45-degree line, such that the current works would not make the situation worse
“Similar extensions have been built elsewhere within the terrace set, and the principle of development has been established by the previous approvals '2019/03245/FUL' and '2019/01982/FUL'”
2020/01759/FUL
“the existing back addition already impacts the line taken at 45 degrees from ground floor level, therefore the proposed roof extension and screening will not worsen it”
2020/03217/FUL
Measured from 106 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 106 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 12 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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, 2020–22. · 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 106 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.