Development Intent
AtlasHillingdonOfficersZenab Haji Ismail
Planning Atlas›Hillingdon›Zenab Haji-Ismail
Case officer · Hillingdon Planning

Zenab Haji-Ismail.

Last recorded decision Jul 2021 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Hillingdon with an approval rate of 83% across 196 decided planning applications, spanning 19 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer196 decisions83% approvalSave
Hillingdon · 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 →
196
Applications
2020–21
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%82%202084%2021
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate83% · 30th of 59
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 reports

Not filled in yet — this needs at least 20 of Zenab Haji-Ismail's own officer reports parsed, and their reports haven't reached that threshold in the parsing run. It fills automatically as parsing progresses; nothing is estimated in its place.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies cited most on decision notices for applications Zenab Haji-Ismail decided — 90 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

DMHB11Design of New DevelopmentHillingdon plan
1 times cited
DMHB21Telecommunications below sets out furtherHillingdon plan
1 times cited
DMHB12Streets and Public Realm sets out how we canHillingdon plan
1 times cited
7.3Superseded
1 times cited
NPPFNPPF
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
23
82%
22
81%
20
100%
18
53%
15
69%
12
92%
11
100%
11
80%
11
80%
10
70%
8
100%
7
100%
6
100%
6
83%
5
100%
5
60%
3
67%
2
100%
1
100%
23
82%
22
81%
20
100%
Show all 19 rows
18
53%
15
69%
12
92%
11
100%
11
80%
11
80%
10
70%
8
100%
7
100%
6
100%
6
83%
5
100%
5
60%
3
67%
2
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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
74089/APP/2020/3305
Planning Application
Refused
2021-09-16
74891/APP/2021/2071
Planning Application
Approved
2021-09-16
74089/APP/2020/3305
Planning Application
Refused
2021-09-16
74891/APP/2021/2071
Planning Application
Approved
2021-09-16
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 196 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Mr Ross Murray Maith Design Suite
2. Mr Oliver Lazarus Urban Mesh
3. Mr Philip Atkins Planning Resolution Ltd. Thorncroft Manor Thorncroft Drive Leatherhead KT22
4. Mrs Sevda Kucuk Regus Highbridge Estate Uxbridge UB8
At a glance
OfficerZenab Haji-Ismail
BoroughHillingdon
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications196 (2020–21)
Approval rate83%
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 Hillingdon planning register and published decision notices, 2020–21. · 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 Hillingdon decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
  4. [4]Policy citations will be coded from officer reports against the adopted Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF — that parsing has not run for this borough yet.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.