Catherine Nichol.
Last recorded decision May 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 69% across 193 decided planning applications, spanning 22 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×.
Nichol's corpus carries a higher refusal share and she is willing to record that the Council's own Senior Design Officer raised objections she ultimately weighs against, rather than presenting a single unified conclusion. Her mansard/terrace design cases count precisely how many buildings in a terrace already have roof extensions before assessing whether a further one is 'emerging pattern' or precedent-setting, and her standard-of-accommodation write-ups distinguish a cramped-but-tolerable room from one that would actually justify an objection.
· records the Council's own design officer's specific objections even where the overall recommendation differs, rather than presenting one unified voice
· counts the precise number of buildings in a terrace that already carry a roof extension to determine whether a further one continues or sets a pattern
· distinguishes a cramped-but-tolerable room from one that would actually justify a refusal, tied to the specific occupancy level the unit is designed for
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an exact count of how many buildings in the terrace already have a roof extension, to establish whether a pattern exists
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a cramped room is still tolerable given the specific occupancy level the unit is designed for (1-2 person vs family)
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the Council's own internal design officer's specific stated objections, recorded even when the final recommendation differs
“The proposal has been reviewed by the Council's Senior Design Officer who has raised a number of objections to the proposal based on the policy background outlined above.”
2021/1823
“Of the 12 buildings, 4 have existing roof extensions and 2 have been granted planning permission for mansard extensions. The wider area also contains groups of terraces that have varying styles of mansard roof extensions. As such, Council can conclude there is an emerging pattern of mansard roof extensions within the terrace”
2022/0059
“The proposed two units would comply with the requirements, it is noted that the kitchen spaces would be cramped. However, given the units are provided for 1-2 occupants this would not be considered insufficient to raise an objection.”
2021/1823
Measured from 169 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 169 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–24.[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, 2021–24. · 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 169 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.