Kelsi Bolstad.
Last recorded decision Mar 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 71% across 103 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×.
Bolstad's basement-conversion assessments flag when required side-elevation drawings are simply missing and state this explicitly as blocking a full daylight assessment, rather than assuming acceptability by default. She checks new residential units for private amenity space provision as a discrete, named policy failure when absent.
· states explicitly when a required drawing (e.g. side elevation) is missing and that this blocks a complete assessment, rather than defaulting to acceptable
· names the absence of private amenity space for a new unit as a discrete, standalone policy failure
· flags a flood-risk-vulnerability RECLASSIFICATION (e.g. 'more vulnerable' to 'highly vulnerable') triggered by adding a self-contained basement unit
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether required side-elevation drawings are actually present — their absence is stated as blocking assessment, not assumed compliant
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a new residential unit has ANY private amenity space provided at all, flagged as a discrete failure when absent
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether adding a self-contained basement unit reclassifies the site's flood-risk vulnerability category
“It appears a potential window could have been shown on the side elevation, however there was no side elevation plans provided as part of the application, therefore this cannot be determined.”
2020/0063
“the proposal would not provide any private amenity space for the new residential unit, contrary to the requirements of the Nationally Described Space Standards.”
2020/0063
“The addition of a self-contained flat to the basement increases the vulnerability of the site to flooding from 'more vulnerable' to 'highly vulnerable'.”
2020/0063
Measured from 98 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 98 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 20 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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, 2020–21. · 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 98 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.