Rachael Osinuga.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 100% across 229 decided planning applications, spanning 10 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×.
Osinuga's caseload is dominated by window replacements, small terraces and rear extensions, and she is distinctive for citing the site's OWN prior planning history (a previously permitted roof terrace or roof extension under its own reference) as establishing the principle for a current related application, rather than relying only on neighbouring precedent. On marginal 45-degree infringements from roof extensions above an existing two-storey outrigger that already breaches the angle, she consistently notes that the new element 'would not project significantly above the height of the rear boundary treatment', treating limited additional height as the operative mitigating fact.
· cites the application site's OWN prior planning permission (e.g. an already-permitted roof terrace or roof extension under its own reference) as establishing the principle for a current, related application at the same address
· on marginal 45-degree infringements above an existing two-storey outrigger that already breaches the angle, focuses on whether the NEW element projects significantly above the height of the rear boundary treatment as the operative mitigating fact
· runs a consistent terrace-noise assessment stating the precise terrace area against the 15sqm threshold combined with its high-level location as sufficient to find noise/disturbance negligible
· whether the application site itself already benefits from a relevant prior permission (e.g. a roof terrace or extension under its own reference) establishing the principle for the current works
· whether a marginal 45-degree breach above an already-infringing two-storey outrigger involves the new element projecting significantly above the rear boundary treatment height
· the precise terrace area in square metres against the 15sqm SPD threshold as the basis for a noise/disturbance finding
“The application site benefits from planning permission for a roof terrace on the main roof under planning Ref. 2010/02909/FUL.”
2025/00141/FUL
“the existing two storey outrigger significantly breaches this angle and the proposal would not project significantly above the height of the rear boudary treatment”
2025/00219/FUL
Measured from 66 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 66 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 10 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–26.[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, 2024–26. · 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 66 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.