Thomas Bertwistle.
Last recorded decision Apr 2020 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 85% across 53 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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×.
Bertwistle's flat-amalgamation cases cite the specific DM20/DM23 policy pairing and confirm no loss of three-or-more units occurs, and his lawfulness-certificate refusals point to a specific missing document type (Council Tax records for the specific unit) as the decisive gap.
· confirms explicitly that an amalgamation does not breach the 'loss of three or more dwellings' policy threshold before endorsing it
· names the exact missing document type (e.g. Council Tax records for the specific flat) as the decisive gap in a lawfulness case
· notes when an application's own supporting statement references unrelated addresses/wards, flagging this as a quality-of-evidence concern
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: explicit confirmation that a flat amalgamation does not cross the three-or-more-dwellings loss threshold
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific named document type missing from a lawfulness case (e.g. Council Tax records for the specific unit)
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an applicant's own supporting statement contains errors (wrong address/ward references) that undermine its reliability
“The proposal would result in 1x non-family unit and 1x family unit being amalgamated into a 4 bedroom family unit. This would not result in a loss of three or more units and would retain the sole family unit on site.”
2020/0008
“The applicant has supplied no evidence to demonstrate that the upper floors of the building have been in continuous residential use for the last four years. A review of Council tax records shows no evidence that t”
2020/0101
“The design and access statement makes reference to other addresses and wards outside of the London Borough of Hackney when referring to the proposal.”
2020/0101
Measured from 40 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 40 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020.[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. · 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 40 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.