Graham Simpson.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 91% across 239 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×.
Simpson's caseload spans roof extensions, ridge-height increases and lightwells, and he is distinctive for treating a 'mutual harm' framing on shared-boundary extensions — where a new second-floor extension would affect a neighbour to a similar or lesser degree than the neighbour's own equivalent existing extension affects the application site, he explicitly describes the harm as 'mutual' and therefore acceptable rather than one-sided. On ridge-height increases, a recurring caseload item, he is comfortable approving where a directly comparable increase has already been permitted next door under its own reference, treating that as establishing the character point rather than assessing the ridge increase in isolation.
· frames residential amenity impact between two similarly-extended neighbouring properties as 'mutual' harm — no greater to one than the other already experiences — as the basis for finding an extension acceptable
· on ridge-height increases, cites a directly comparable increase already permitted next door under its own application reference as establishing that the alteration is not out of character
· on lightwells, checks a specific comparable lightwell already granted permission at the same application site under its own historic reference before finding the current proposal's dimensions acceptable
· whether the amenity impact of a new extension on a neighbour would be reciprocal ('mutual') given the neighbour's own equivalent extension, rather than one-sided harm
· whether a comparable ridge-height increase has already been permitted at a directly adjoining property under its own application reference
· whether a previously granted lightwell at the same site (under its own historic reference) establishes the acceptability of the current lightwell's dimensions
“It is considered that any harm caused by the extension to No. 129 Harbord Street be no more than that experienced by No. 131. The harm would therefore be mutual.”
2020/00972/FUL
“There is an existing similar raised ridge next door at No. 1, which was granted permission in 2015 (2015/01961/FUL). Given this context officers consider that a proposed ridge height increase of 300mm would be acceptable”
2020/01051/FUL
Measured from 98 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 98 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 98 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.