Mwansa Tembo.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 91% across 595 decided planning applications, spanning 19 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×.
Tembo's caseload is dominated by rear/roof extensions and 'pod' dormer conversions, and she is distinctive for explicitly invoking the permitted-development fallback position — arguing that a scheme's modest breach of the Council's 50%-back-addition-coverage guidance is acceptable because the applicant could demolish and rebuild to the same dimensions under permitted development rights anyway, so refusing achieves nothing. She is comfortable naming specific comparable extensions at named neighbouring addresses with their own application references as precedent, and on residential-amenity impact she runs a granular, address-specific 45-degree-angle assessment for each affected neighbour rather than a single borough-wide test, weighing cumulative impact on named individual windows.
· invokes the permitted-development 'fall-back position' explicitly — a scheme that modestly breaches the 50% back-addition coverage guidance is still recommended for approval because the same volume could be built without permission anyway
· names the specific neighbouring address and application reference used as a design precedent (e.g. an existing pod extension at a named adjoining property under its own historic reference) rather than a generic 'similar development exists nearby' statement
· runs the 45-degree-angle/outlook test separately for each individually named neighbouring property and window, rather than applying one borough-wide pass/fail line to the whole application
· whether the proposal's excess over the Council's 50% back-addition-coverage guidance is offset by a genuine permitted-development fall-back position
· whether a directly comparable pod or mansard extension already exists at a specific named neighbouring address, and under what historic reference
· the precise angle and window-by-window outlook impact on each individually named adjoining property
“it is acknowledged that there is the legitimate fall-back position that the development could be demolished and reconstructed from scratch to still comply with permitted development requirements to the same dimensions as currently being applied for”
2022/00384/FUL
“A similar pod extension exists at adjoining neighbour No.18 which had planning permission under ref 2001/01916/FUL”
2022/01011/FUL
Measured from 310 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 310 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 19 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 310 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.