Monika Vistartaite.
Last recorded decision Jul 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 90% across 53 decided planning applications, spanning 21 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.
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×.
Vistartaite's lawful-development-certificate reports work systematically through each GPDO class condition with a pass/fail marker against each clause, and her design conclusions for extensions cite the exact solid-to-void ratio and materials palette (brick type, roof membrane, window material) rather than a general design statement.
· works through GPDO class conditions clause by clause, marking each individually as pass ('P') or not applicable
· specifies the exact materials palette (brick type, roofing membrane, window material) for an extension rather than a general 'appropriate materials' statement
· confirms biodiversity condition compliance by naming the specific mitigation feature (swift boxes, nest boxes) and the policy clause it satisfies
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each individual GPDO class condition checked and marked pass/fail on its own, not a summary conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact materials palette (brick type, roof membrane, window material) specified for a proposed extension
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific named biodiversity mitigation feature and which policy sub-clause it satisfies
“Volume of rear roof extension = 29m� B.2 Development is permitted by Class B subject to the following conditions--”
2022/0469
“London Stock bricks for elevations, grey membrane for the roof, and painted timber for new windows and doors.”
2022/0472
“Brick faced swift nest boxes would be incorporated below the main eaves along the flank elevation close to the rear elevation. This would satisfy the requirements outlined in Policy LP47 of Local Plan 2033.”
2022/0472
Measured from 52 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 52 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022.[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. · 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 52 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.