Gerard Livett.
Last recorded decision Aug 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 67% across 315 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×.
Livett's corpus carries a disproportionate share of refusals and Certificate-of-Lawfulness evidential disputes, and he is explicit about weighing a proposal 'when viewed in addition to other extensions at the property' — i.e. cumulative impact rather than assessing each addition in isolation. His CIL calculations name the specific additional floorspace figure driving the liability.
· assesses cumulative impact of a proposal alongside a site's own existing extensions, not the new element in isolation
· states the precise additional floorspace figure (sqm) that triggers a CIL liability rather than a general liability statement
· identifies the specific evidential gap (missing accuracy, insufficient period covered) that undermines a Certificate of Lawfulness application
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a new extension, taken TOGETHER with existing extensions on the same site, still results in a proportionate development
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: continuous, gap-free documentary evidence (tenancy agreements, business rates) spanning the full statutory period for a lawfulness certificate
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific additional floorspace figure that determines CIL liability
“the proposed extension, although relatively modest in its own right, would, when viewed in addition to other extensions at the property, result in a development that overall would not have a sense of proportion and balance in relation to the original building”
2020/0331
“The application proposes an additional 143 square meters of floorspace. The proposal would be liable for both the Mayor of London's and the Hackney Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).”
2020/0522
“The drawings at a scale of 1:100 are insufficiently accurate to demonstrate that the existing and proposed windows would have the same dimensions.”
2020/0583
Measured from 279 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 279 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[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, 2020–23. · 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 279 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.