Development Intent
Case officer · Hammersmith And Fulham Planning

Sian Brown.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 89% across 173 decided planning applications, spanning 13 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer173 decisions89% approvalSave
Hammersmith And Fulham · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
173
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%83%202085%202197%202271%202393%2024100%202589%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate89% · 33rd of 45
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports64 officer reports parsed
4%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
2%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
92%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Hammersmith And Fulham's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Hammersmith And Fulham reports. Attention, not stance.

Energy & sustainability
3.85× borough avg
Transport & parking
3.71× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.72× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.48× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.21× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Brown's caseload includes a notable share of conversion applications requiring full assessment against London Plan/DCLG space standards, and she is one of the more structurally thorough coded officers, running a full numbered section report (Land Use, Quality of Accommodation, Design and Heritage, Amenity Impact, Noise, Highways and Transportation, Air Quality) for larger schemes rather than the compressed checklist most colleagues use. On unit conversions with a marginal shortfall against space standards, she is willing to approve where the shortfall is small (e.g. 1sqm) and the flat's overall size and quality otherwise justify it, explicitly reasoning that refusal 'for this reason only' would be unreasonable.

Observable habits

· structures larger applications (conversions, HMO losses) as full numbered sections mirroring a committee report format (Land Use, Quality of Accommodation, Design and Heritage, Amenity Impact, Noise, Highways and Transportation, Air Quality) rather than a compressed checklist

· on marginal space-standard shortfalls in a converted unit (e.g. a bedroom falling 1sqm short), weighs the overall size and quality of the flat and concludes refusal 'for this reason only' would be unreasonable

· cross-checks whether an affected neighbour has confirmed in writing their support and their own intention to build an approved extension that would itself screen the affected window, treating that as reducing the practical amenity harm

What their reports consistently look for

· whether a converted unit's overall GIA and individual room sizes meet or exceed the minimum requirements, and whether any shortfall is marginal enough that refusal 'for this reason only' would be unreasonable

· whether an affected neighbour has confirmed in writing their support for the application, including any of their own future works that would independently mitigate the impact

· the specific numbered heading (Land Use, Quality of Accommodation, Design and Heritage, Amenity Impact, Noise, Highways, Air Quality) most relevant to a particular impact

Assigned Sian Brown on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

Given the shortfall for the bedroom would be marginal (1sqm), and in view of the overall size and quality of the flat it would be unreasonable to refuse planning permission for this reason only.

2021/03078/FUL

No. 32 have confirmed in writing that they support the application and that they intend to build their ground floor extension approved under (2021/01935/FUL) which would in any case screen the window

2021/02286/FUL

Measured from 64 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 64 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DC1Built environment quality and integration
48 times cited
DC4High standard of design for alterations and extensions
47 times cited
DC8Heritage and conservation: Buildings at risk
45 times cited
HO11Detailed Residential Standards
40 times cited
CC11Noise and Vibration Control for Developments
31 times cited
CC13Control of potentially polluting uses and environmental nuisance
28 times cited
T1Promoting cycling, walking, and public transport connections
20 times cited
T7Construction and Demolition Logistics
20 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
2025/03020/FUL
Full Planning Application
Approved
2026-05-29
2025/01618/FUL
Full Planning Application
Approved
2026-04-23
2025/03020/FUL
Full Planning Application
Approved
2026-05-29
2025/01618/FUL
Full Planning Application
Approved
2026-04-23
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 173 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Mr Paul Bottomley / Town Planning Bureau
2. Mr Tony Mclaren / Mclaren Architecture Ltd
3. Mr Jeremy Butterworth / J Butterworth Planning
4. Yossi Shahar / Tal Arc Ltd.
At a glance
OfficerSian Brown
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications173 (2020–26)
Approval rate89%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [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. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 64 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.