Elliot Brown.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 91% across 399 decided planning applications, spanning 16 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×.
Brown has the highest refusal share of the coded officers (30 of 167 sampled reports), with a caseload weighted toward conservation-area properties containing locally listed Buildings of Merit, and he pays particular attention to the presence of nearby statutorily listed buildings even where the application site itself is not listed, naming them and their distance from the site as material context. On flood risk in Flood Risk Zone 3 he is notably detailed, tracking the specific mitigation measure proposed (e.g. a named sedum roof product, raised floor levels by a stated number of millimetres) rather than a generic FRA sign-off.
· names nearby statutorily listed buildings and their approximate distance from the application site as material heritage context, even when the site itself is only locally listed or unlisted
· tracks flood risk mitigation measures at a specific, named level of detail (e.g. a named sedum roof product, an exact millimetre figure for a raised floor level) rather than a generic Flood Risk Assessment sign-off
· has a comparatively high refusal rate among the coded officers, consistent with a caseload weighted toward heritage-sensitive Building of Merit properties
· the identity and approximate distance of any statutorily listed buildings near the application site, even where the site itself is not listed
· the specific named flood mitigation product or exact raised-floor-level figure proposed, not just whether an FRA was submitted
· whether a locally listed Building of Merit's character would be harmed, applied with more scrutiny than a standard unlisted terrace property
“The Holy Trinity RC Church (Grade II* Listed), The Holy Trinity Parish Hall (Grade II Listed) and Nos. 1-4 St Josephs House (Grade II Listed) are all located approximately 30m to the south-east of the application site”
2020/00482/FUL
“the extension would feature a Bauder XF301 sedum roof”
2020/00544/FUL
Measured from 167 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 167 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 16 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 167 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.