Anisa Aboud.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 95% across 101 decided planning applications, spanning 11 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×.
Aboud has a comparatively thin sampled corpus with a notable share of large institutional/mixed-use schemes alongside standard householder extensions, and on the householder side she is distinctive for matching a proposed pod extension and terrace's scale and depth PRECISELY to an already-approved neighbouring scheme under its own reference, describing the new proposal as matching 'the depth of the approved neighbouring terrace' rather than a general character comparison. On larger schemes she runs a full numbered committee-style report structure (Neighbouring Amenity, Highways/Parking, Flood Risk, Biodiversity Net Gain, Air Quality, Fire Strategy, Land Contamination) mirroring the format used for major applications.
· matches a proposed pod extension or terrace's scale and depth PRECISELY to an already-approved neighbouring scheme under its own application reference, rather than a general character comparison
· on larger institutional or mixed-use schemes, structures the report as a full numbered committee-style report (Neighbouring Amenity, Highways/Parking, Flood Risk, Biodiversity Net Gain, Air Quality, Fire Strategy, Land Contamination)
· on basement extensions, works through a lettered (a) through (i) checklist against the Council's basement Key Principle criteria systematically
· whether a proposed pod extension or terrace's scale and depth precisely matches an already-approved neighbouring scheme under its own application reference
· for larger schemes, whether each numbered committee-style heading (Neighbouring Amenity, Highways, Flood Risk, Biodiversity Net Gain, Air Quality, Fire Strategy, Land Contamination) has been separately addressed
· for basement extensions, whether each lettered criterion (a)-(i) of the basement Key Principle is individually satisfied
“The proposed terrace above the existing rear extension would match the depth of the approved neighbouring terrace at no.43 Hammersmith Grove.”
2022/01349/FUL
“Officers do not consider that the proposal would result in any adverse harm to resident's amenity by way of loss of light, privacy or increase in noise and disturbance to justify refusing planning permission, in accordance with policies HO11, CC11 and CC13 of the Local Plan (2018)”
2024/02332/FUL
Measured from 33 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 33 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 11 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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, 2021–26. · 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 33 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.