Megan Smith.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 99% across 238 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×.
Smith's caseload is dominated by window replacement and small rear infill extensions, and she is distinctive for consistently attaching an obscured-glazing condition to REPLACEMENT windows wherever the window being replaced was already obscured glazed, tracking this window-by-window across the elevation to preserve existing privacy levels rather than assuming a like-for-like replacement needs no condition. She frequently cross-references her own reasoning to a numbered sub-section (H11_1/H11_2/DC4L/DC6L) rather than repeating it, and on solar panel and PV installations she applies a consistent maximum-protrusion figure in metres from the roof plane as the operative visual-impact test.
· tracks, window by window, whether the EXISTING window being replaced was already obscured glazed, and attaches a condition requiring the replacement to remain obscured glazed to maintain existing privacy levels
· applies a consistent maximum-protrusion figure (in metres) from the roof plane as the operative visual-impact test for solar/PV panel installations, rather than a qualitative design judgement
· cross-references her own reasoning to a specific numbered sub-section (e.g. H11_1, H11_2, DC4L, DC6L) rather than repeating the same analysis under each policy heading
· whether the specific window being replaced was already obscured glazed, requiring the replacement to match to preserve existing privacy
· the precise protrusion of solar/PV panels from the roof plane in metres, and whether they will be coloured to match and screen from private dwellings
· which numbered sub-section (H11_1/H11_2/DC4L/DC6L) already contains the relevant reasoning to be cross-referenced rather than repeated
“The existing window at first floor level on the rear elevation of the existing back addition and the small window on the rear elevation of the main building are obscured glazed, therefore, a condition will be attached to ensure that the replacement windows would also be obscured glazed to maintain the existing levels of privacy and mitigate overlooking.”
2025/00232/FUL
“the installation of solar panels will not protrude more than 0.3m from the existing roof”
2024/01447/FUL
Measured from 95 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 95 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 95 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.