Benjamin Hicks.
Last recorded decision Feb 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 93% across 28 decided planning applications, spanning 9 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.
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×.
Hicks's caseload is dominated by pod and roof extensions on narrow rear gardens, and he is distinctive for framing a marginal 45-degree breach at one specific distance point within an irregularly-shaped garden boundary as 'negligible' by cross-referencing the SAME extension's compliance at a different point along the same irregular boundary (e.g. citing both a 3.7m and a 5.6m measurement along one garden's boundary). He consistently checks whether a proposed extension's projection depth 'aligns with the established rear building line' set by NAMED comparable extensions at specific neighbouring addresses, citing their individual depths in metres.
· on irregularly-shaped garden boundaries, cross-references a marginal 45-degree breach at one measured point against compliance at a different measured point along the SAME boundary, framing the breach as negligible in context
· checks whether a proposed extension's projection depth aligns with an 'established rear building line' set by NAMED comparable extensions at specific neighbouring addresses, citing their individual depths in metres
· on marginal breaches where the existing rear outrigger already slightly infringes the 45-degree line, assesses whether the new works would 'significantly exacerbate' that pre-existing situation rather than treating any addition as fatal
· multiple measured points along an irregular garden boundary, to contextualise whether a marginal 45-degree breach is genuinely negligible
· the specific depths in metres of named comparable extensions at neighbouring addresses that establish the 'rear building line' for the terrace
· whether new works would significantly exacerbate a pre-existing marginal 45-degree infringement already caused by the existing rear outrigger
“at the 5.6m distance, which covers about 72% of the width, the pod extension would comfortably fit within the visual bulk envelope. Thus, the minor breach at the 3.7m distance further underscores its negligible effect.”
2023/03301/FUL
“A comparable extension depth can be observed at adjoining no. 27 (2.5m), as well as further along the terrace at no. 39 (3m). Therefore, it is considered that the projection aligns with the established rear building line set by these extensions.”
2024/00060/FUL
Measured from 24 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 24 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 9 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–24.[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, 2023–24. · 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 24 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.