Ronny Ferley.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 80% across 174 decided planning applications, spanning 14 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×.
Ferley has a comparatively high refusal share (20 of 80 sampled) with a caseload weighted toward mixed-use, commercial-frontage and conservation-area properties, and he is distinctive for engaging with the wider streetscape and character of a conservation area at a descriptive level (naming specific architectural features — stucco embellishment, canted bays, roof parapets) before reaching a design judgement, rather than a purely numeric assessment. On extensions that formally exceed depth guidance, he examines whether the wider terrace already contains 'some very large extensions... fairly recent' as site-specific context justifying a larger scheme, and separately treats an existing but unauthorised installation (e.g. AC units installed without planning consideration) as something to be 'regularised' via condition rather than simply accepted as a fait accompli.
· gives a descriptive architectural-character assessment (naming specific features like stucco embellishment, canted bays, roof parapets) as the basis for a conservation-area design judgement, rather than relying solely on numeric criteria
· examines whether the wider terrace already contains large, comparable, relatively recent extensions as site-specific context justifying a scheme that formally exceeds depth guidance
· treats existing but unauthorised installations causing genuine neighbour complaint (e.g. AC units installed without planning consideration) as needing to be 'regularised' by condition, rather than accepted uncritically because they already exist
· the specific architectural features (stucco, bays, parapets, brick finish) that define a conservation area's character before assessing a proposal's visual impact
· whether the wider terrace already contains large, comparable and relatively recent extensions that justify site-specific context for a larger-than-standard scheme
· whether an existing but unauthorised feature causing neighbour complaint should be regularised via condition rather than accepted as-is
“the rear of the wider terrace is characterised by some very large extensions, some of which appears to be fairly recent. Hence, the site specific circumstances is such that a larger rear extension can be justified within the context of the application site”
2024/00443/FUL
“the AC units are existing, they have been installed without any appropriate planning considerations in terms of neighbouring amenity impact”
2024/03008/FUL
Measured from 80 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 80 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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, 2021–26. · 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 80 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.