George Shakir.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 98% across 492 decided planning applications, spanning 13 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×.
Shakir's reports are the most terse of the coded officers, frequently opening a criterion assessment with a bare 'Complies-' before a short factual sentence, and relying heavily on cross-references ('Refer to section DC1L and DC4L of this report') rather than repeating reasoning. His caseload includes a notable share of window/door replacement and basement enlargement applications within Article 4 basement-restriction areas, and he is distinctive for framing rear/roof extensions as acceptable primarily because they are an 'established form of development on this type of property in the surrounding neighbourhood', a broad area-character finding rather than a single named-precedent comparison.
· opens compliance findings with a terse 'Complies-' prefix followed by a brief factual sentence, rather than a discursive paragraph
· relies on internal cross-references between policy sections ('Refer to section DC1L and DC4L') rather than repeating the same reasoning under each heading
· justifies rear/roof extensions primarily via a broad 'established form of development... in the surrounding neighbourhood' area-character finding rather than one specific named precedent
· whether a rear or roof extension type is an established, common form of development in the surrounding neighbourhood generally, rather than requiring one specific comparable precedent
· whether a basement proposal is compliant with the borough-wide Article 4 Direction restricting basement development
· brief factual compliance against each Housing Standards Key Principle criterion, cross-referenced rather than repeated
“Such rear extensions and loft extensions are an established form of development on this type of property in the surrounding neighbourhood”
2022/02612/FUL
“The site is subject to the borough wide Article 4 Direction restricting basement development”
2022/00582/FUL
Measured from 234 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 234 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 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 234 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.