Nurgul Kinli.
Last recorded decision Mar 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 96% across 155 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×.
Kinli's caseload is dominated by rear extensions and roof terraces, and she states the precise rear garden depth in metres in nearly every report as the anchor fact for the 45-degree test, rather than a bare pass/fail. Where the garden depth causes a technical infringement, she is comfortable finding the extension acceptable where the EXISTING back addition already infringes the same line and the additional breach is 'somewhat minor', explicitly comparing the new extent of breach to the existing baseline. On roof terraces she runs a consistent size/screening trade-off, stating the exact terrace area against the 15sqm SPD threshold and the specific privacy screen height, and treats terraces under that threshold with an obscure-glazed screen as compliant even where the depth exceeds 50% of the back addition.
· states the precise rear garden depth in metres in nearly every report as the anchor fact underpinning the 45-degree angle assessment, rather than a bare compliant/non-compliant statement
· where the existing back addition already infringes the 45-degree line, compares the additional extent of a new breach against that existing baseline, describing genuinely marginal additions as 'somewhat minor'
· runs a consistent terrace area (sqm) vs 15sqm SPD threshold and privacy screen height trade-off, treating a terrace under the threshold with an obscure-glazed screen as acceptable even where its depth exceeds 50% of the back addition
· the precise rear garden depth in metres, stated explicitly for nearly every application, as the basis for the 45-degree line assessment
· whether the EXISTING back addition already infringes the 45-degree line, and whether a new proposal's breach is a minor addition to that existing baseline
· the exact roof terrace area in square metres against the 15sqm threshold, combined with the specified privacy screen height
“as the existing back addition already infringes this line and the somewhat minor extent of the breach, it is not considered that the proposal would result in a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties at the rear with regards to residential amenity when compared to the existing situation”
2023/00417/FUL
“the proposed terrace is under 15sqm (8.15 sqm), as specified within the Supplementary Planning Document (2018) and given its location at a high level and the introduction of a 1.7 m high privacy screen, Officers consider that the proposed terrace will not result in unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance to neighbouring occupiers”
2022/02947/FUL
Measured from 104 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 104 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 16 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–24.[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, 2022–24. · 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 104 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.