Amy Wilkie.
Last recorded decision Aug 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 94% across 381 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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×.
Wilkie's caseload is dominated by routine rear/side extensions and window replacements, and she runs a very consistent numbered i)/ii)/iii) 'Complies'/'Not Applicable'/'Does not comply' checklist against the SPD Key Principles for nearly every report. Her most distinctive habit is testing marginal HS6(i) 45-degree-angle breaches not against the guideline in the abstract but against whether the SPECIFIC neighbouring property already benefits from its own side infill extension, treating that existing parity as sufficient to satisfy the criterion. Where a proposal formally breaches a numeric depth or angle threshold, she is comfortable finding it acceptable by pointing to the site's own extension planning history (a prior approved or historic addition of similar or greater depth) rather than treating any breach as fatal, and she is willing to refuse where a combined-depth calculation genuinely exceeds the guideline with no such mitigating history.
· tests HS6(i) 45-degree outlook compliance by checking whether the specific affected neighbouring property already benefits from its own side infill extension at ground floor level, treating that as satisfying the criterion
· where a numeric depth guideline is breached, checks the site's own historic planning permissions (including old 'HIST' reference decisions) for a previously approved extension of comparable or greater depth before finding the departure acceptable
· runs the numbered i)/ii)/iii) SPD Key Principles compliance checklist consistently, explicitly marking 'Not Applicable' where a site condition (e.g. rear garden already over 9m, property abuts a railway or school) removes a criterion rather than silently omitting it
· whether the specific neighbouring property most affected by a rear or side extension already has its own side infill extension at ground floor level
· whether the site itself has a planning history of a previously approved extension of comparable or greater depth that mitigates a current numeric breach
· whether each numbered Key Principle criterion is explicitly marked Complies, Not Applicable, or Does not comply with the specific site condition stated
“The neighbouring No.22 benefits from a side infill extension at ground floor level. As such the proposals comply with this criterion.”
2020/02553/FUL
“officers have reviewed the site planning history and note that the ground floor has already been extended 3.5m into the rear garden under application (1974/00907/HIST)”
2020/03475/FUL
Measured from 154 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 154 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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, 2020–22. · 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 154 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.