Robert Cook.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 92% across 269 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×.
Cook's caseload is dominated by rear/side extensions on terraces backing onto commercial buildings, cemeteries or open land, and he is distinctive for treating an atypical rear-boundary condition (a blank commercial wall, a cemetery, or a substantial separation distance) as effectively removing the 45-degree amenity test's purpose, explicitly noting there is 'no neighbouring property to the rear' to be harmed even where the numeric angle is technically breached. Where the existing built form already breaches the 45-degree line, he consistently frames the test as whether the proposal 'would not worsen the existing situation' rather than whether it independently complies, and applies the same non-worsening logic to a range of extension types.
· identifies an atypical rear-boundary condition (blank commercial wall, cemetery, open land, large separation distance) and treats it as removing the practical harm the 45-degree guideline exists to prevent, even where the technical breach remains
· where the existing built form already breaches the 45-degree angle, reframes the test as whether the new proposal 'would not worsen the existing situation' rather than requiring independent compliance
· applies a consistent chamfered-edge/pitched-away-from-boundary massing analysis to justify why extensions close to a shared boundary would not significantly reduce light to specific named neighbouring openings
· whether the property to the rear is genuinely residential and capable of being harmed, or whether it is a blank commercial wall, cemetery or open land that removes the practical amenity concern
· whether the EXISTING back addition already breaches the 45-degree angle, making 'would not worsen the existing situation' the operative test rather than independent compliance
· the precise massing/chamfering detail and its effect on specific named neighbouring windows or rooflights
“beyond the rear boundary is the open space of Fulham Cemetery, with no neighbouring properties to the rear. Furthermore, the existing back addition already breaches this 45 degree angle to a greater extent than the proposed extensions, and it is considered that the proposal would not worsen the existing situation”
2023/00387/FUL
“Beyond the rear boundary of the application site is a commercial building with a blank rear elevation built up to the boundary”
2022/03091/FUL
Measured from 147 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 147 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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, 2021–26. · 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 147 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.