Steven Mielczarek.
Last recorded decision Dec 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 88% across 285 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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×.
Mielczarek's caseload is dominated by first-floor and rear roof 'pod' extensions and he applies a numeric '15% angle of unobscured/unobstructed visibility' test alongside the standard 45-degree test for first-floor back-addition enlargements, calculating the specific depth and width against this threshold rather than a bare pass/fail. Where a first-floor rear extension formally infringes a criterion, he is comfortable finding it acceptable by pointing to an existing conservatory or extension established on the site for many years under its own historic reference, treating the historic baseline as the comparator rather than a hypothetical compliant scheme. He is one of the more willing officers to refuse where a rear roof extension's depth clearly exceeds the Council's 50% preferred design threshold and visibly dominates neighbouring windows, distinguishing genuine departures from cases where non-compliant neighbouring precedents were themselves built contrary to their approved drawings.
· applies a numeric '15% angle of unobscured/unobstructed visibility' calculation to first-floor back-addition width/depth increases, in addition to the standard 45-degree rear-boundary test
· where a first-floor rear extension technically infringes a criterion, compares it to an existing conservatory or extension already established on the site for many years under its own historic application reference, rather than a hypothetical fully-compliant scheme
· distinguishes between genuine neighbouring precedent and precedent that was itself built contrary to its approved drawings, refusing to treat unlawful over-depth extensions elsewhere in the terrace as a valid comparator
· whether a first-floor back-addition enlargement falls within the 15% angle of unobscured visibility as well as the 45-degree rear-boundary test
· whether a technically non-compliant rear extension replicates the dimensions of an existing conservatory or addition already established on the site under its own historic reference
· whether a cited neighbouring 'precedent' extension was itself lawfully approved at that depth, or built contrary to its own approved drawings
“the proposed extension would replicate similar dimensions of the existing conservatory which has been established on the site for many years (1993/00122/FUL)”
2020/00286/FUL
“it should be noted that these extensions were constructed contrary to the originally approved drawings that required rear extensions with a depth no greater than 50% of the back ad”
2020/00592/FUL
Measured from 119 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 119 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 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 119 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.