Development Intent
AtlasHackneyOfficersJames Clark
Case officer · Hackney Planning

James Clark.

Last recorded decision Oct 2023 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 78% across 454 decided planning applications, spanning 21 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer454 decisions78% approvalSave
Hackney · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
454
Applications
2020–23
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%78%202186%202269%202377%2024100%2025
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate78% · 26th of 52
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports415 officer reports parsed
6%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
3%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
2%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
49%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Hackney's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Hackney reports. Attention, not stance.

Precedent & consistency
1.46× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.38× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.38× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.3× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Clark's design assessments frequently anchor on the immediate townscape context — noting where a terrace is 'distinct in townscape terms' from its neighbours or where a building sits at a junction — before applying policy. His sustainability sections are unusually numerate, quoting specific tCO2/year figures and percentage reductions from submitted Energy Strategy Statements rather than a general sustainability conclusion.

Observable habits

· situates a design judgement in the building's specific townscape position (corner plot, junction, distinct roofline within its own terrace) before applying policy

· quotes specific numeric energy-statement figures (tCO2/year, % reduction against baseline) rather than a general sustainability conclusion

· measures neighbour amenity impact in specific metres of extension depth/height against each individually named neighbouring address

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the specific building's townscape position (corner, junction, distinct typology) changes what's appropriate compared to its neighbours

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the actual tCO2/year and percentage-reduction figures in a submitted Energy Strategy Statement, not just a compliance statement

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: metric distances/heights at each individually affected neighbour's boundary rather than a general amenity conclusion

Assigned James Clark on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

the application site consists of three stories like the rest of the terrace it is distinct in townscape terms in that it appears to be of a different typology to the rest of the terrace, notably by including a flat roof rather than the mansard style roofs present on the other properties

2020/3980

the estimated total regulated CO2 emissions from the 2 No proposed Flats is 0 tCO2/year when the SAP 10 emission factors are applied as required by the London Plan. The cumulative effect of the final measures implemented in accordance with the GLA's Energy Hierarchy achieve a saving of 4 tCO2/year, which equates to a total of a 104% reduction from the baseline

2020/3486

At the boundary with 35 Poole Road the proposed extension would have a height of 2.5 metres and a depth of 3.7 metres. Whilst the depth of the proposed extension would match the depth of the existing extension the height at the boundary would be slightly greater.

2020/4020

Measured from 415 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 415 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

LP1Part A will be applied having regard to the scale and location of the
34 times cited
LP2Development and Amenity
32 times cited
D4Allocation: Mixed-use including residential
28 times cited
LP3Designated Heritage Assets
23 times cited
HC1Allocation: Mixed use
13 times cited
LP6Archaeology
12 times cited
D6Allocation: Retail/market uses
9 times cited
LP58Improving the Environment - Pollution
9 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
2022/2114
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2025-07-11
2022/2687
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2024-10-22
2022/2114
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2025-07-11
2022/2687
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2024-10-22
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 454 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Redwoods Projects Ltd
2. Stace LLP
3. SAM Planning services
4. MINIMASPACE
At a glance
OfficerJames Clark
BoroughHackney
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications454 (2020–23)
Approval rate78%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [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. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 415 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.