Christopher Poad.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 66% across 130 decided planning applications, spanning 20 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×.
Poad's resubmission cases quote the exact wording of a prior refusal reason before explaining precisely how the new submission addresses it, and his social/community-infrastructure casework names the specific occupier organisation and its student-capacity numbers rather than describing the use type generically.
· quotes the exact wording of a prior refusal reason before setting out how the new submission specifically addresses it
· names the specific named occupier organisation and states capacity numbers (e.g. students per session) for social/community infrastructure uses
· notes when cycle parking falls short of the preferred standard (e.g. hanging stand vs Sheffield stand) but accepts it given site constraints rather than treating any deviation as fatal
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact wording of a previous refusal reason, addressed point-by-point in the resubmission
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific named occupier organisation and its stated capacity figures for a social/community-infrastructure use
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a cycle-parking standard deviation (e.g. non-Sheffield stand) is justified by genuine site constraints rather than convenience
“This application was refused for the following reason: 1. The applicant has failed to submit sufficient information to demonstrate that the site is suitable for the use proposed, the need for the use or to allow the local planning authority to adequately assess the impacts of the proposal in terms of the impacts to the amenity of nearby residents or the surrounding highway network. In order to overcome the concerns raised in respect of this refused application the applicant has provided further details with regards to the proposed occupiers”
2023/1317
“the unit would be occupied by Hasanah Academy London, which is a tuition academy. The sessions provided would be aimed at part time students, children after school and during the weekends, accommodating up to 48 students at a time during the week and 30 students at a time at weekends.”
2023/1317
“While this is not strictly in accordance with standards, which only support Sheffield stands, this is considered acceptable in this instance given the constrained layout of the site.”
2023/2543
Measured from 81 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 81 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 20 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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, 2022–26. · 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 81 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.