Benjamin Coffie.
Last recorded decision May 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 71% across 69 decided planning applications, spanning 16 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×.
Coffie's amenity refusals cite the SPECIFIC affected neighbour by address and depth figure driving the objection while noting that a different adjoining neighbour's own existing extension already mitigates any impact there — a differentiated per-neighbour treatment rather than a blanket refusal.
· differentiates between adjoining neighbours, finding one already mitigated by their own extension while another is not, rather than a blanket amenity conclusion
· cites named comparator extensions at specific numbered addresses to argue a proposal's character has 'evolved' with area precedent
· flags where daylight/sunlight assessment specifically fails against ONE named neighbouring property while passing for another
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether each individually adjoining neighbour is differently affected (one already mitigated by their own extension, another not) rather than one blanket amenity verdict
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: named comparator extensions at specific numbered addresses supporting an argument that street character has evolved
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which SPECIFIC named neighbouring property a daylight/sunlight assessment actually fails against, not a general pass/fail
“it is noted that the adjoining property at No.77 benefits from a rear extension along the boundary with the application dwelling, having an approximate depth of 1.5m.”
2020/3118
“the proposal fails against the other attached dwelling at No. 73 which does not posses any rear projection which could sheild off any impacts of the proposed rear extension alike no.77.”
2020/3118
“it is acknowledged that the proposal depicts prevalent precedents within the immediate area and would mirror the dormer and outrigger development at No.40.”
2020/3142
“there are a number of similar extensions in the immediate vicinity and thus it could be argued that the character has evolved with these types of extensions being commonplace, notably at Nos. 44, 50, 52 and 58”
2020/3142
Measured from 61 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 61 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 16 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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, 2020–21. · 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 61 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.