Lasma Putrina.
Last recorded decision Aug 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 88% across 39 decided planning applications, spanning 18 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×.
Putrina's listed-building casework quotes the specific Local Plan heritage policy text (LP3's requirement to 'retain, repair and reinstate historic features in a historically correct manner') at length before applying it, and repeats the same detailed policy-quote template closely across similar listed-building cases on comparable properties.
· quotes the LP3/HC1 heritage policy text at length, including its specific sub-clauses on retaining/repairing/reinstating historic fabric, before applying it
· reuses a consistent detailed policy-citation template across similar listed-building cases rather than varying the framing case by case
· explicitly separates 'design and appearance' assessment from the underlying 'principle of extending' question for listed-building schemes
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific sub-clauses of LP3/HC1 heritage policy (retain, repair, reinstate in a historically correct manner) quoted and applied directly
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a clearly separated 'principle of development' question distinct from the detailed design assessment that follows
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a listed building's roof structures of architectural or historic interest are specifically addressed, not folded into general design commentary
“Policy HC1 `Heritage conservation and growth' of the London Plan (2021) states that "Development proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings, should conserve their significance, by being ympathetic to the assets' significance and appreciation within their surroundings".”
2021/0028
“Policy LP3 goes on to say that all proposals for Listed Buildings hould: Seek to conserve and enhance significance by retaining, repairing and (where appropriate) reinstating istoric features and fabric in a historically correct manner; and Respect the historic plan form and hierarchies of space; and Retain roof structures of architectural or historic”
2021/0028
Measured from 36 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 36 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 18 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 36 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.