Development Intent
Case officer · Hammersmith And Fulham Planning

Gloria Dixon.

Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026

A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 62% across 81 decided planning applications, spanning 16 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer81 decisions62% approvalSave
Hammersmith And Fulham · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
81
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%100%202063%202159%202275%202329%202478%202560%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate62% · 43rd of 45
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports30 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
Assigned Gloria Dixon on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →

Measured from 30 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 30 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DC1Built environment quality and integration
24 times cited
DC4High standard of design for alterations and extensions
18 times cited
HO11Detailed Residential Standards
15 times cited
DC8Heritage and conservation: Buildings at risk
15 times cited
CC11Noise and Vibration Control for Developments
8 times cited
CC13Control of potentially polluting uses and environmental nuisance
5 times cited
DC5Encouragement of high quality shopfronts
5 times cited
T3Promoting Cycling in New Developments
3 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
2025/02030/FUL
Full Planning Application
Approved
2026-05-14
2025/01543/FUL
Full Planning Application
Approved
2026-05-07
2025/02030/FUL
Full Planning Application
Approved
2026-05-14
2025/01543/FUL
Full Planning Application
Approved
2026-05-07
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 81 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Neal Thompson / Robinson Escott Planning
2. Mr Ehsan UL-HAQ / ArchiGrace Limited
3. Saleem / CUBE Planning
4. Mr Jorge Giraldo / Projection Architects Ltd
At a glance
OfficerGloria Dixon
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications81 (2020–26)
Approval rate62%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [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. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 30 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.