Paul Curtis.
Recently active — last recorded decision Jan 2025
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 96% across 495 decided planning applications, spanning 14 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×.
Curtis has the highest cross-reference density of the coded officers, with many reports built almost entirely of 'See comments under DC4L of this report' pointers rather than repeated prose, and a notable specialism in electric vehicle charging point installations on-street, which he assesses primarily for their visual impact on conservation areas via siting and clutter rather than transport policy. On window/door replacement applications, a recurring caseload item, he consistently frames acceptability around material and period compatibility with neighbouring properties rather than the specific dimensions of the opening.
· builds reports predominantly from cross-references to a single detailed section ('See comments under DC4L') rather than repeating reasoning under each heading, producing the most compressed reports of the coded officers
· on street-sited EV charging point applications, assesses acceptability primarily via visual clutter and streetscene impact within conservation areas rather than transport capacity
· on window/door replacement, frames compliance around match to the style, material and period of neighbouring properties rather than a numeric opening-size comparison
· whether a proposed on-street EV charging point and control box would be neatly sited to align with existing street furniture without cluttering the conservation area streetscene
· whether replacement windows/doors match the style, material and period of the host property and its neighbouring terrace
· whether the reasoning under one detailed policy section can be cross-referenced rather than repeated elsewhere in the report
“The charging point will be neatly located at the kerb edge to align closely with existing street furniture”
2020/00215/FUL
“The overall effect will not be cluttering and the character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved”
2020/00216/FUL
Measured from 181 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 181 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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, 2020–25. · 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 181 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.