Louise Jarrett.
Recently active — last recorded decision Mar 2025
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 67% across 34 decided planning applications, spanning 16 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×.
Jarrett's window-replacement cases explicitly weigh a departure from preferred materials (UPVC over timber) against the degree to which the specific street's character has already been eroded by similar past changes, rather than a blanket materials rule. Her refusals specifically identify a missing tree survey as blocking assessment of root-protection impact.
· weighs a materials departure (UPVC vs timber) against how far the specific street's character has ALREADY been eroded by comparable past changes, rather than applying a blanket rule
· identifies a missing tree survey/arboricultural report as specifically blocking assessment of root-protection-zone impact
· separates biodiversity net gain THRESHOLD applicability (garden area lost) from the separate question of whether a green roof still delivers a policy uplift
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: how far a street's original character has already been eroded by comparable past departures, before ruling on a new one
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a tree survey/arboricultural report has actually been submitted where excavation could affect root protection zones
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a scheme crosses the BNG mandatory threshold at all, versus whether a green roof delivers a voluntary uplift regardless
“Whilst the replacement of the windows from the existing timber framed windows to uPVC is not typically encouraged by the council as it would impact upon the character and appearance of the building, as the street scene has been significantly altered in this regard, it would not warrant a refusal in this case.”
2024/2178
“No tree survey or arboriculture report has been submitted to demonstrate how the proposal and the application form states that there are trees on the application site.”
2024/2214
“The proposal results in the loss of 22sqm of garden and does not therefore meet the threshold for the BNG legislation. The green roof is welcomed and would meet the requirements for an uplift as sought by LP47.”
2024/2214
Measured from 31 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 31 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 16 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–25.[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, 2023–25. · 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 31 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.