Development Intent
AtlasHackneyOfficersJonathan Bainbridge
Planning Atlas›Hackney›Jonathan Bainbridge
Case officer · Hackney Planning

Jonathan Bainbridge.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 90% across 601 decided planning applications, spanning 21 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer601 decisions90% 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 →
601
Applications
2021–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%91%202297%202387%202492%202582%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate90% · 7th 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 reports507 officer reports parsed
4%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
4%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
2%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
40%
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.

Privacy & overlooking
1.93× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.71× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.33× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.1× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.1× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Bainbridge's corpus is dominated by prior-approval/lawful-development-certificate casework and is comfortable with the mechanical volume-calculation and neighbour-consultation checklists those templates require, quoting the exact GPDO class conditions verbatim before applying them. On full planning applications, he leans on cited precedent — an explicitly named neighbouring property and its reference — to justify scale and design.

Observable habits

· quotes the exact GPDO class/condition wording verbatim before applying it to the facts of a permitted-development case

· shows the underlying volume-calculation arithmetic for loft/outrigger extensions rather than just stating a pass/fail

· names a specific neighbouring property and its own reference as the design precedent justifying scale

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise volume-calculation arithmetic (not just a stated total) for a loft/outrigger conversion under Class B

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a named neighbouring property with its own planning reference as the precedent for scale/design acceptability

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the statutory neighbour-consultation window under the GPDO has actually run its course before a decision is issued

Assigned Jonathan Bainbridge 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

“Main loft extension: (1.264m + 2.22m)/2 x 2.880m x 5.029 = 25.23m3 Outrigger extension: 1.075mm x 0.35/2 x 1.735m = 0.33m3 Total volume = 25.23m3 + 0.33m3 = 25.56m3”

2021/3605

“it is noted that a precedent has been set and the size and type of this rear extension is a characteristic for the neighbouring properties and the wider residential environment”

2021/3582

“Given the 0.75 metres over the height specified in the SPD, the outbuilding does not appear as a subservient and secondary addition to the existing dwellinghouse”

2022/0051

Measured from 507 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 507 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4Allocation: Mixed-use including residential
224 times cited
D1130 Kingsland High Street and site to the rear 130A Kingsland High
182 times cited
LP46Protection and Enhancement of Green Infrastructure
156 times cited
D3Allocation: Mixed-use including residential
141 times cited
LP1Part A will be applied having regard to the scale and location of the
133 times cited
LP47Biodiversity and Sites of Importance of Nature Conservation
127 times cited
LP55Mitigating Climate Change
127 times cited
SI 2
119 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
67
93%
54
90%
52
92%
44
93%
43
86%
38
84%
38
94%
35
94%
32
89%
27
88%
26
90%
25
85%
20
90%
20
71%
16
92%
15
100%
12
89%
11
100%
11
88%
8
88%
7
100%
67
93%
54
90%
52
92%
Show all 21 rows
44
93%
43
86%
38
84%
38
94%
35
94%
32
89%
27
88%
26
90%
25
85%
20
90%
20
71%
16
92%
15
100%
12
89%
11
100%
11
88%
8
88%
7
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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
2026/0778
Householder Planning
Refused
2026-06-04
2026/0777
Householder Planning
Approved
2026-06-04
2026/0778
Householder Planning
Refused
2026-06-04
2026/0777
Householder Planning
Approved
2026-06-04
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 601 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Eade Planning Ltd
2. Redwoods Projects Ltd
3. Stace LLP
4. MoreSpace
At a glance
OfficerJonathan Bainbridge
BoroughHackney
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications601 (2021–26)
Approval rate90%
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, 2021–26. · 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 507 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.