Ian Opolot.
Last recorded decision May 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 93% across 139 decided planning applications, spanning 9 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×.
Opolot's caseload is dominated by rear/ground floor extensions and lightwells with a comparatively high refusal share, and he is distinctive for finding a rear extension acceptable where it would be 'built to an identical depth' to a specific named neighbouring property, treating exact depth-matching as a decisive fact even where the extension formally does not comply with the 3.5m guidance. On marginal 45-degree infringements, he references the neighbour's OWN intention to build a similar extension of comparable design and dimensions as a further mitigating factor, going beyond existing built form to also weigh a neighbour's disclosed future plans.
· finds a rear extension acceptable where it would be built to an IDENTICAL depth to a specific named neighbouring property, treating exact matching as decisive even where the guideline figure is technically breached
· weighs a neighbour's own disclosed INTENTION to build a similar extension of comparable design and dimensions as a further mitigating factor for a marginal 45-degree infringement, beyond existing built form alone
· cites the specific separation distance and orientation between a proposed development and named neighbouring properties as the basis for finding no significant loss of daylight or outlook, rather than a bare guideline check
· whether a rear extension would be built to an identical depth to a specific named neighbouring property, even where this technically breaches the standard guideline figure
· whether the affected neighbour has disclosed their own intention to build a comparable extension of similar design and dimensions
· the specific separation distance and orientation between the proposed development and named neighbouring properties
“the development is considered acceptable as it is to be built to an identical depth to that of No. 4, and there will be no significant impacts to the amenity of No. 4 as a result of the development”
2020/00060/FUL
“it is understood that No. 2 Albert Terrace are considering to erect a rear extensionn of similar design and dimensio”
2020/01022/FUL
Measured from 59 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 59 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 9 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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 59 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.