Jessica Neeve.
Last recorded decision Mar 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 85% across 120 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×.
Neeve's conservation-area refusals note the historical rarity of extensions along a specific street (checking Council records for how many have ever been granted), and her design sections repeatedly flag when proposed fenestration doesn't align with upper-floor window positions, treating misalignment as a distinct objection.
· checks Council records for how many extensions have EVER been granted on a specific street as a rarity/precedent test
· flags vertical misalignment between proposed and existing upper-floor fenestration as a distinct, named design objection
· cites multiple named comparator applications with their own references for extension-depth acceptability
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a Council-records check of how many extensions have ever been granted on the specific street in question
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether new ground-floor openings align vertically with the fenestration pattern on upper floors
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: several named comparator applications, by reference, for the depth of a proposed extension
“in accordance with the council's records only one application has ever been granted for an extension along Dorset Court. This application was granted in 2005 under the previous Local Plan, and to the best of the council's knowledge this extension was not built.”
2022/1498
“The size and placement of the proposed door and windows do not align with those on the upper floors creating a visible imbalance between the levels.”
2022/1498
“Extensions of similar scales have been approved along the terrace at nos. 111(2021/1449), 141 (2018/2130), and 127 (2014/3586) Clifden Road.”
2023/0204
Measured from 116 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 116 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 20 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–24.[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, 2022–24. · 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 116 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.