Clive Theobald.
Recently active — last recorded decision Nov 2024
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 79% across 56 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×.
Theobald's refusals are structured as a numbered list of distinct, independently sufficient reasons (each citing its own separate policy set), and his larger-scheme reports tabulate the full unit schedule (bedroom count, floor area, amenity area) alongside the applicable London Plan/LP33 space standard for direct comparison.
· structures a refusal as a numbered list of independently sufficient reasons, each citing its own distinct policy set
· tabulates the full unit-by-unit schedule (bedrooms, GIA, amenity area) directly against the applicable space standard for side-by-side comparison
· names the specific ecological survey type (bat activity survey, preliminary ecological assessment) and quantifies the resulting biodiversity percentage uplift
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each refusal reason standing independently, citing its own distinct policy set rather than one blended justification
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a full unit-by-unit tabulation of bedrooms/GIA/amenity area set directly against the applicable space standard
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific named ecological survey type and the quantified percentage biodiversity uplift it demonstrates
“1- The outbuilding, by reason of its position, massing, scale and detailed design, would result in an incongruous, unneighbourly and unsympathetic addition that would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the application site and wider area.”
2020/3864
“2- Insufficient information has been submitted with this application to allow the local planning authority to undertake a full and proper assessment of whether the identified noise mitigation measures are achievable and feasible, to the detriment of the amenity and living conditions of adjoining residents”
2020/3864
“Flat No. Accommodation Floor Area (m2) London Plan Amenity Space London Plan Standard (m2) (m2) Standard (m2) 1 3B 6P 131.3 95 115.8 9 2 1B 2P 68.2 50 43.7 5”
2023/2671
“The bat survey has identified a likely absence of roosting bats at the site and has recommended a watched brief during work. The PEA states that the proposal would deliver a 320% increase in the site's biodiversity value”
2023/2671
Measured from 36 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 36 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 16 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–24.[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, 2020–24. · 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 36 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.