Abbas Sabir.
Last recorded decision Apr 2020 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 80% across 7 decided planning applications, spanning 5 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.
Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Hackney reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Sabir's rear-extension casework runs the cumulative arithmetic of ALL developed rear-garden area across multiple past permissions on the same site (infill, outbuilding, new extension summed together) before judging acceptability, rather than assessing the newest element alone.
· sums the total developed rear-garden area across ALL past and proposed structures on a site (infill + outbuilding + new extension) before judging acceptability
· tests both the plan-level and elevation-level 45-degree rule separately against each adjoining neighbour, noting where they diverge
· cites the exact prior approved scheme's dimensions as the direct numeric benchmark for the current, larger proposal
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the TOTAL cumulative developed area of the rear garden across every past and proposed structure on the site, not just the current proposal in isolation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the 45-degree rule is breached in plan but not elevation (or vice versa) for each specific adjoining neighbour
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact dimensions of a directly prior approved scheme on the same site as the numeric benchmark for the current proposal
“This proposal combined with the implemented rear infill side extension, and outbuilding would result in approximately 54.9 sq. m of the rear garden being developed. Prior to the implemented infill side extension, and outbuilding, the rear garden was approximately 83.05 sq.m.”
2020/0568
“the proposed rear extension would breach the 45 degree rule at plan level, but would not breach the 45 degree rule at elevation level. Given that the proposed extension would have a flat roof, and that the rear of these properties are east-facing, the potential loss of light and outlook to this neighbour as a result of this rear extension would be limited.”
2020/0568
“The proposed extension is approximately 6 sq. m larger than the approved single storey rear extension approved under the prior approval 2019/4153.”
2020/0568
Measured from 51 published Hackney 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 51 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020.[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 Hackney planning register and published decision notices, 2020. · 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 Hackney 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 51 published Hackney 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.