Amy SuetYan Lee.
Last recorded decision Aug 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 91% across 126 decided planning applications, spanning 10 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×.
Lee's caseload is dominated by rear/side extensions and pod extensions, and she is distinctive for treating a marginal numeric overshoot on the 45-degree line as acceptable where the specific angle of infringement (e.g. 47 degrees against the 45-degree standard) is stated precisely and framed as a 'small infringement', combined with the extension not exceeding 50% of the outrigger depth. On ground floor windows, she checks whether the neighbouring ground floor side return has ALREADY been fully infilled along the boundary before concluding a new first-floor extension would not significantly add to existing impact at that level.
· states the precise angle of a 45-degree-line infringement in degrees (e.g. 47 degrees against the 45-degree standard) and frames a small numeric overshoot as acceptable given the extension's limited additional depth
· checks whether a neighbouring ground floor side return has already been infilled along the full width of the boundary before concluding a new first-floor extension would not add significantly to existing impact at that level
· runs a consistent roof terrace/noise test citing the specific terrace area against the 15sqm threshold alongside the number of affected neighbouring openings
· the precise angle in degrees by which a proposal infringes the 45-degree line, distinguishing marginal overshoots from significant breaches
· whether the neighbouring ground floor side return has already been infilled along the full boundary width, changing the amenity baseline
· the exact roof terrace area in square metres against the 15sqm threshold, and the number of neighbouring openings it could affect
“the proposed pod extension would slightly infringe the 45 degree line of sight (i.e. 47 degree); however, given that this is a small infringement and the proposed pod extension is not more than 50% of the existing outrigger, the proposal would not significantly impact upon the rear facing windows of this neighbour”
2023/00494/FUL
“Given that the ground floor L-shaped extension has infilled along the full width of the boundary, the proposed extensions are not considered to have a significant impact on the neighbouring rear facing openings at ground floor level”
2022/02572/FUL
Measured from 68 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 68 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 10 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–23.[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, 2022–23. · 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 68 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.