Alix Hauser.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 83% across 313 decided planning applications, spanning 21 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 Hackney reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Hauser's refusals lean heavily on employment-floorspace protection policy in mixed commercial/residential casework, citing the absence of marketing evidence as decisive, and she is willing to flag procedural irregularities (unauthorised works discovered on site, an inadequate heritage statement) as standalone objections in their own right rather than folding them into design.
· treats absence of marketing evidence for employment floorspace loss as a standalone, decisive objection
· calls out a heritage statement's failure to assess specific harms as a procedural deficiency, not just weighing the harm itself
· documents the intensification effect of a use change in concrete terms (potential to double patron numbers) rather than a general amenity statement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: marketing evidence demonstrating no demand for the existing/former employment use before accepting its loss
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the submitted heritage statement actually assesses the harm caused by each element of a scheme, not just asserts benefit
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a concrete, quantified account of how intensified a use would become (e.g. potential patron numbers) rather than a general nuisance statement
“No marketing evidence has been submitted with the application. As such no details have been provided to justify the loss of employment floorspace that would arise from the proposal.”
2020/0029
“The heritage statement fails to assess the impact of the proposed works. The further subdivision, creation of new staircases is very invasive and yet the statement fails to assess the harm. Instead it states that these are a benefit and improve the existing structure.”
2020/0029
“The proposal would result in the entire four storeys of the building being in A4 use (albeit the first floor unlawfully) which would have the potential to double the number of patrons visiting the site on any given day.”
2020/0029
Measured from 258 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 258 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 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 Hackney 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 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 258 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.