Grace Harrison.
Last recorded decision Apr 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 82% across 71 decided planning applications, spanning 8 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×.
Harrison's smaller sampled caseload spans mansion block alterations, plant/gantry installations and major hotel and mixed-use applications alongside standard extensions, and on large or contested schemes she runs a full numbered committee-report structure engaging closely with technical evidence, most notably interrogating a submitted Transport Assessment's own comparator sites and methodology (their age, size, and geographic relevance) rather than accepting expert submissions at face value — leading her to a refusal where the trip-generation evidence did not stand up to scrutiny. On householder schemes she is comfortable citing a specific reduced-scale comparison against the applicant's OWN previously approved (larger) scheme under its own reference as justification for the smaller current proposal.
· interrogates a submitted technical assessment's own methodology and comparator data (e.g. a Transport Assessment's comparator site age, size and geographic relevance) rather than accepting expert submissions at face value, and is willing to refuse where the evidence does not hold up
· cites a specific reduced-scale comparison against the SAME applicant's own previously approved, larger scheme under its own reference as justification for a smaller current proposal
· on plant/mechanical installations at height, assesses visibility from specific named public vantage points and neighbouring terraces at the same level rather than a blanket visibility judgement
· whether a submitted Transport Assessment's comparator sites are of comparable age, size and geographic relevance to the application site, rather than accepting the methodology uncritically
· whether a current, reduced-scale proposal compares favourably to the SAME applicant's own previously approved larger scheme under its own reference
· whether rooftop plant or mechanical installations would be visible from specific named public vantage points or neighbouring terraces at the same level
“Officers were concerned that the comparator sites chosen were weak indicators of the likely existing trips generated by the existing office building at 26-28 Hammersmith Grove. The surveys were between 6-10 years old and trip patterns could have changed significantly since then.”
2021/00537/FUL
“This proposal represents development at a reduced scale compared to extensions already approved under application Refs.2018/01459/FUL and 2020/03391/VAR, and instead sees the form of the existing threestorey back addition retained.”
2021/00633/FUL
Measured from 26 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 26 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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, 2020–22. · 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 26 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.