Zhirong Li.
Active — last recorded decision Nov 2025
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 93% across 666 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×.
Li's caseload spans conservation-area extensions and flood-zone development, and his reports are the most systematically formulaic of the coded officers, running a numbered (i)/(ii)/(iii) compliance checklist against the borough's Housing Standards Key Principles for almost every application, explicitly marking each criterion as 'Complies'/'Not applicable'/'does not comply' before any narrative discussion. Where a scheme does not comply with a numeric guideline (depth, boundary setback), he is comfortable recommending approval anyway by comparing the proposal directly against an existing extension at the specific most-affected neighbouring property, arguing the departure is mitigated because it does not exceed what already exists next door. He treats flood risk assessments in Flood Zone 3 as a routine sign-off once the Environmental Policy Team has raised no objection, rarely elaborating beyond a one-line confirmation.
· runs an explicit numbered (i)/(ii)/(iii) 'Complies'/'Not applicable'/'does not comply' checklist against the Housing Standards Key Principles criteria before any narrative discussion, for nearly every report
· where a numeric guideline is breached, justifies approval by direct comparison against an existing extension at the SPECIFIC most-affected neighbouring property, showing the proposal does not exceed what already exists there
· treats Environmental Policy Team sign-off on a Flood Risk Assessment as sufficient without further elaboration, even in Flood Risk Zone 3
· whether each Housing Standards Key Principle criterion individually complies, is not applicable, or does not comply, stated explicitly rather than implied
· whether a proposal that breaches a numeric depth or boundary guideline is still no worse than an existing comparable extension at the specific neighbouring property most affected
· whether the Environmental Policy Team has raised any objection to the submitted Flood Risk Assessment
“the proposed rear extension at the application site would set below the No.11's rear extension and it would not project any further than that extension”
2020/03221/FUL
“any harmful impact on no.11's amenities would be mitigated against”
2020/02972/FUL
Measured from 287 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 287 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 287 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.