Tom Scriven.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 92% across 83 decided planning applications, spanning 15 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×.
Scriven's caseload is dominated by rear extensions and dormer additions, and he consistently states the precise depth of a proposal's projection BEYOND a specific named neighbouring property's own rear wall (e.g. 'a projection of approximately 1.5m beyond the rear of the neighbour at No.26') rather than the total depth from the host dwelling, treating this incremental figure as the operative amenity measure. On dormer additions he identifies whether the proposal would 'infil a gap within a row of rear dormers' along the terrace, treating a gap-filling scheme as inherently following the established pattern of development.
· states the precise incremental projection BEYOND a specific named neighbouring property's own rear wall (not the total depth from the host dwelling) as the operative amenity measure
· identifies whether a proposed dormer or roof extension would 'infil a gap' within an otherwise consistent row of similar extensions along the terrace, treating gap-filling as inherently following the established pattern
· on marginal 45-degree infringements from a back addition or terrace, checks whether the EXISTING rear outrigger already significantly breaches the angle due to its own proximity to the boundary before assessing whether the new works add materially to that
· the precise incremental projection of a proposal beyond a SPECIFIC named neighbour's own rear wall, rather than the total depth from the host dwelling
· whether a dormer or roof extension would fill a gap within an otherwise consistent row of similar extensions along the terrace
· whether the existing rear outrigger already significantly breaches the 45-degree angle due to its own proximity to the boundary, before assessing new works
“It would project approximately 1.5m beyond the rear of the existing outrigger. This would result in a projection of approximately 1.5m beyond the rear of the neighbour at No.26.”
2023/01341/FUL
“The proposal would infil a gap within a row of rear dormers on this part of the terrace. Therefore it is considered that this element of the proposal would follow the established pattern of development within the area.”
2021/00497/FUL
Measured from 42 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 42 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 15 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 42 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.