Nastassja Lazarus.
Last recorded decision Jun 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 94% across 169 decided planning applications, spanning 13 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×.
Lazarus's caseload is dominated by rear roof and pod extensions, and she is distinctive for stating the precise angle of a 45-degree-line infringement in degrees (e.g. 49 degrees against the 45-degree standard) rather than a bare pass/fail, consistently checking that the design compensates via a 70-degree mansard slope and a maximum 50% back-addition depth. She frequently notes when the EXISTING first floor back addition already infringes the 45-degree line before assessing whether a further second-floor pod extension would add materially to that pre-existing breach.
· states the precise angle in degrees by which a proposal infringes the 45-degree line (e.g. 49 degrees), rather than a bare compliant/non-compliant statement
· checks that a 45-degree infringement is compensated by the pod extension's 70-degree mansard slope and its depth not exceeding 50% of the back addition, as the standard mitigating package
· notes when the EXISTING first floor back addition already infringes the 45-degree line before separately assessing whether a further second-floor pod extension materially worsens that pre-existing breach
· the precise angle in degrees by which a pod or roof extension infringes the 45-degree line
· whether the extension's 70-degree mansard slope and depth (not exceeding 50% of the back addition) sufficiently mitigate a technical 45-degree breach
· whether the EXISTING back addition already infringes the 45-degree line, distinguishing pre-existing breach from any additional impact of new works
“the existing first floor back addition infringes upon the 45 degree line as drawn from the rear property boundary at ground level. The proposed extension on top of the existing back addition to form a "pod" extension at second floor level would marginally infringe upon the 45 degree line at 49 degrees”
2021/00922/FUL
“The proposed pod extension would marginally infringe a 45 degree line when taken from the centre of the window serving the side elevation of no. 56 Felden Street at first floor level. However on balance, the proposed impact is considered to fall within acceptable levels as the pod extension would incorporate a 70 degree style mansard side elevation”
2021/03194/FUL
Measured from 47 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 47 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 rows
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 47 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.