Sally Moorhead.
Last recorded decision Dec 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 94% across 329 decided planning applications, spanning 11 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×.
Moorhead's caseload is dominated by side/rear extensions and roof terraces along established terraces, and she is distinctive for citing MULTIPLE named comparable addresses with their own historic application references (often three properties in a single paragraph) to establish that a proposal continues 'the pattern of development' along a terrace, going further than a single-precedent citation. She engages closely with planning appeal decisions on the same or nearby terraces, quoting the inspector's own reasoning (e.g. on mass, height and 'unbalancing the relationship' of a terrace) as a basis for approving a similar scheme. On roof terraces she is attentive to screening lightweight/obscure-glazed materials as the mitigating factor when a terrace formally breaches the 45-degree line, rather than treating any breach as fatal.
· cites multiple (often three or more) named comparable addresses with their own historic application references in a single paragraph to establish that a proposal continues 'the pattern of development' along a terrace
· quotes a planning inspector's own appeal-decision reasoning (e.g. on mass, height and terrace balance) directly to support approving a similar current scheme on the same or a nearby terrace
· treats lightweight or obscure-glazed screening on a roof terrace as the mitigating factor that makes a formal 45-degree-angle breach acceptable, rather than any breach being automatically fatal
· whether several (not just one) named comparable extensions or terraces already exist along the same street, each citable by its own historic application reference, establishing a pattern of development
· whether a nearby or same-terrace appeal decision's inspector reasoning applies directly to the current scheme
· whether a roof terrace's screening is sufficiently lightweight or obscure-glazed to mitigate a technical 45-degree-angle infringement
“the applicable terrace contains examples of second floor level roof terraces extending the entire depth, including no. 23 Archel Road (2015/00153/FUL) and no. 25 Archel Road (refused, appeal allowed 2011/02388/FUL)”
2020/00518/FUL
“The inspector also noted that a number and variety of extensions and alterations are evident to the rear of properties in Archel Road and neigbouring Chesson Road which now appear to contribute to the character of the area.”
2020/00518/FUL
Measured from 153 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 153 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 11 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 153 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.