Thomas Russell.
Last recorded decision Mar 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 84% across 191 decided planning applications, spanning 21 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×.
Russell's basement/roof-terrace casework quotes precise SPD numeric thresholds (floor-to-ceiling height, minimum lightwell distance) and explicitly measures a proposed roof terrace's depth against named nearby comparator terraces to test whether it is proportionate or excessive.
· quotes precise SPD numeric thresholds (floor-to-ceiling height, lightwell distance) rather than a general basement-design judgement
· measures a proposed roof terrace's depth in metres directly against named comparator terraces elsewhere in the same block
· flags where a basement design's success at meeting a daylight rule is uncertain given the size of an associated lightwell, rather than asserting compliance
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact SPD numeric threshold (floor-to-ceiling height, lightwell separation) a basement design is measured against
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the depth in metres of a proposed roof terrace set directly against named nearby comparator terraces
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether soft landscaping within a lightwell is realistically achievable given its size, not just proposed on paper
“The council's Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD (2009) states that proposed basement extensions should incorporate a floor to ceiling height of at least 2.15 metres and should receive adequate sunlight/daylight. To ensure this the basement should comply with the 30 degree rule when measured from the centre of the window, and lightwells should be a minimum distance of 1 metre between window pane and retaining wall.”
2022/0723
“The proposed roof terrace would measure 6 metres in depth, substantially more than the 2.15-metre-depth of the nearby terraces at nos 40 and 42, Clarence Road. Given the overall depth of the property is approximately 16.5 metres, the proposed 6-metre-deep roof terrace would be considered excessive and disproportionate”
2022/1053
“Soft landscaping would be incorporated within the rear lightwells to mitigate the impact on landscaping in the rear garden although it is not known if this would be successful given the size of the lightwells.”
2022/0723
Measured from 150 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 150 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–24.[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, 2020–24. · 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 150 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.