Development Intent
AtlasHammersmith and FulhamOfficersSinead Winship David
Case officer · Hammersmith And Fulham Planning

Sinead Winship David.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 82% across 61 decided planning applications, spanning 13 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer61 decisions82% 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 →
61
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%40%202082%2021100%2022100%2023100%2024
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate82% · 39th 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 reports22 officer reports parsed
6%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
88%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
Assigned Sinead Winship David 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

The proposal represents a new facility that will help the borough reduce emissions and improve air quality.

2020/02891/FUL

The proposed terrace would have an area of 2.86sqm, at this size the terrace would not be considered large enough to give rise to undue noise or disturbance.

2021/02038/FUL

Measured from 22 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 22 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DC1Built environment quality and integration
19 times cited
DC4High standard of design for alterations and extensions
17 times cited
T1Promoting cycling, walking, and public transport connections
16 times cited
DC8Heritage and conservation: Buildings at risk
16 times cited
HO11Detailed Residential Standards
15 times cited
CC11Noise and Vibration Control for Developments
14 times cited
T3Promoting Cycling in New Developments
10 times cited
T4Vehicle parking standards and permit-free development
10 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
P/2026/00440/FUL
Full Planning Application
2026-02-23
P/2026/00763/LBC
Listed Building Consent
2026-02-23
P/2026/00440/FUL
Full Planning Application
2026-02-23
P/2026/00763/LBC
Listed Building Consent
2026-02-23
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 61 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Mr Harry Rowe / Currie & Brown
2. Gerald Eve LLP / Gerald Eve LLP
3. Mr James O'Connor / Woodfords Solicitors LLP
4. Mr Nigel Coleman / Oakman Architecture Ltd
At a glance
OfficerSinead Winship David
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications61 (2020–26)
Approval rate82%
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 22 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.