Kirti Chovisia.
Last recorded decision Aug 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 83% across 290 decided planning applications, spanning 9 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×.
Chovisia's caseload is dominated by roof terrace and dormer/pod extensions, and she is distinctive for applying a 'would not be worsened' test to noise and privacy where a roof terrace is already existing and in situ, treating the historic presence of the terrace (sometimes citing the specific application reference under which it was acknowledged) as neutralising the amenity objection even where the current application does not independently comply with the 45-degree criterion. On terrace-size/noise judgements she runs a consistent balancing exercise between the numeric terrace area in square metres, its high-level location, and its relationship with neighbouring properties, explicitly concluding a technical non-compliance would not, in the 'normal course of events', justify refusal.
· where a roof terrace has been in situ for a number of years (sometimes citing the specific historic application reference that acknowledged it), treats its existing presence as neutralising a current noise/privacy objection, framing impact as 'existing' and 'not worsened' by the works
· runs an explicit numeric balancing exercise for roof terrace noise (terrace area in sqm, its high-level location, relationship with neighbours) before concluding a technical 45-degree non-compliance would not, in the normal course of events, justify refusal
· notes when criteria (i)-(iii) of the Key Principle are 'not applicable' because the rear boundary abuts a non-residential feature (an alleyway, park, or non-residential unit) rather than another dwelling
· whether a roof terrace has an established historic presence (ideally with its own acknowledging application reference) that the current works would not worsen
· the precise terrace area in square metres weighed against its high-level location and relationship with neighbouring properties as the basis for a noise/disturbance judgement
· whether the rear boundary abuts a genuinely non-residential feature that removes the criteria (i)-(iii) test altogether
“Officers are satisfied that the roof terrace has been in situ for more than 4 years and was acknowledged under the planning application No. 2008/01667/FUL. Officers therefore consider that the impact on neighbouring amenity is existing and would not be worsened as a result of the proposed works.”
2020/00350/FUL
“having regard to the size of the proposed terrace (5.8 sqm), which would limit the number of people it could hold, together with the location at high level and the relationship with neighbouring properties, it is not considered that its use would, in the normal course of events, be likely to harm the existing amenities of adjoining occupiers”
2020/00174/FUL
Measured from 146 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 146 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 9 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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, 2020–21. · 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 146 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.