Ruhina Begum.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 99% across 387 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×.
Begum's caseload is dominated by window/door replacement (particularly uPVC-to-timber conversions) and single-storey rear extensions, and she is distinctive for recommending approval of extensions that formally 'do not comply' with the standard depth or projection guidance where the host property's unusual plot position — most often an end-of-terrace plot set forward of, or staggered from, its neighbours — genuinely reduces the amenity impact that the guideline exists to prevent, rather than treating any numeric departure as an automatic problem.
· explicitly finds a scheme 'does not comply' with a numeric guideline but 'is considered acceptable in this instance' where the host property's own staggered or forward plot position independently mitigates the amenity impact the guideline targets
· on uPVC-to-timber window replacement applications (a recurring caseload item), assesses compatibility primarily by opening style and size match to the existing rather than material alone
· explains the geometric reason (e.g. positioned ahead of the adjoining property) for why a standard guideline doesn't apply cleanly to a given site, rather than simply citing an exception
· whether the host property's own plot position (staggered terrace, forward of the building line) independently reduces the amenity impact a numeric depth/projection guideline exists to prevent
· whether replacement windows match the opening style and size of the existing, rather than only the frame material
· the specific neighbouring property most affected by a guideline departure, and whether its own positioning changes the amenity outcome
“The subject property is at the end of a staggered terrace and is positioned ahead of the adjoining property (No. 3). The unique positioning of the subject property facilitates a larger rear extension without causing an unacceptable impact to neighbouring amenity”
2022/00540/FUL
“The opening style and size will match the existing, and this is considered to be acceptable and compatible with the style and period of property and windows on neighbouring properties”
2022/01077/FUL
Measured from 171 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 171 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 171 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.