Grace Purnell.
Last recorded decision Nov 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 89% across 159 decided planning applications, spanning 8 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×.
Purnell's caseload is dominated by roof extensions, terraces and outbuildings, and she is distinctive for framing amenity impact between two comparably-affected neighbouring properties as 'mutual and negligible' (echoing a habit also seen in a colleague's reports), and for treating the historic establishment of a terrace's use and size under its own prior application reference as removing any additional noise/overlooking concern from a later, related application (e.g. adding a balustrade to an already-approved terrace). She is precise about citing multiple neighbouring precedent addresses with their own application references when justifying a design departure such as a raised ridge height or additional floor.
· frames amenity impact between an outbuilding or extension and a comparably-affected neighbouring property as both 'mutual and negligible', rather than treating any infringement as one-sided harm
· treats a terrace's use and size as having already been established under its own prior application reference, such that a later related application (e.g. a balustrade change) would create no additional noise or overlooking impact
· cites multiple neighbouring precedent addresses with their own historic application references to justify a design departure such as a raised ridge height, an additional floor, or a full-depth roof extension
· whether the harm from an outbuilding or extension to a specific affected neighbour is mutual and negligible given that neighbour's own equivalent feature
· whether a terrace's use and size were already established under a prior application reference, removing any additional noise/overlooking concern from later related works
· whether multiple (not just one) named neighbouring addresses with their own historic references establish a pattern justifying a ridge-height increase or additional floor
“the affected property, No.42 Ellerby Street, possesses an outbuilding of a similar height and scale. As such, harm is considered to be both mutual and negligible.”
2020/01845/FUL
“The use of the terrace has been established under application ref: 2016/04520/FUL, therefore no additional impact on noise disturbance, from the installation of the railings proposed within this application is anticipated.”
2020/00648/FUL
Measured from 62 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 62 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
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.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Hammersmith And Fulham planning register and published decision notices, 2020–21. · 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 62 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.