Hasna Miah.
Recently active — last recorded decision Sep 2025
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 96% across 508 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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×.
Miah's caseload is heavily weighted toward householder extensions in established terraces, and she is distinctive for citing multiple specific comparable extensions along the SAME street with their own historic application references to establish that a proposal is 'compatible with the established character of the immediate terrace' — often naming three or more precedent addresses in a single paragraph rather than a single comparator. On residential amenity she runs the standard i/ii/iii Key Principle checklist but frequently frames a marginal non-compliance (e.g. depth exceeding guidance) as acceptable where the affected neighbour already has an equivalent extension of their own, treating parity between neighbours as the operative test rather than the absolute guideline figure.
· cites MULTIPLE named comparable extensions along the same street, each with its own historic application reference, to establish an 'established character of the immediate terrace' finding, rather than a single precedent
· treats parity with an existing extension at the specific affected neighbouring property as the operative amenity test when a numeric guideline (e.g. rear depth) is marginally exceeded
· runs the numbered i/ii/iii Housing Standards Key Principle checklist consistently, usually with a short factual justification per criterion (e.g. exact rear garden depth in metres) rather than a bare 'complies'
· whether several (not just one) directly comparable extensions already exist along the same street, each citable by its own historic application reference
· whether the specific neighbour most affected by a guideline departure already benefits from an equivalent extension of their own
· the precise rear garden depth in metres and whether the 45-degree angle from the rear boundary is infringed
“Planning permission has been granted for similar extensions at No. 8 (Ref. 2017/03960/FUL), No. 22 (Ref. 2020/02094/FUL) and No. 24 (Ref. 2009/02523/FUL) Bowfell Road”
2022/00327/FR3
“the proposal would only project 1m beyond the rear walls of the adjoining neighbours, this is considered to be a minimal projection that would not result in a sense of enclosure”
2022/00271/FUL
Measured from 284 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 284 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–25.[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, 2021–25. · 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 284 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.