Timothy Walder.
Last recorded decision Mar 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 97% across 31 decided planning applications, spanning 14 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×.
Walder's listed-building casework quotes the full statutory listing description at length and traces a building's construction/conversion history using named historic photographs and Ordnance Survey map evidence to establish what fabric is genuinely original before assessing a proposal against it.
· quotes the full statutory listing description of the building at length before assessing any proposal against it
· traces a building's history using named specific historic evidence (a dated photograph, an Ordnance Survey map year) to establish what is genuinely original fabric
· distinguishes windows/doors nearing the end of their usable life (replacement appropriate) from historic fabric worth retaining
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the complete statutory listing description quoted in full as the basis for any heritage judgement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: specific named historic evidence (a dated photograph, an Ordnance Survey map) establishing what fabric is genuinely original versus later alteration
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether existing windows/doors are genuinely nearing the end of their usable life (justifying replacement) or retain historic value worth preserving
“Early-mid C19 villa of 3 storeys and basement, 3 windows. Stock brick. Fairly low-pitched hipped slate roof with eaves soffit. Stuccoed basement. Moulded architraves to replaced sash windows, those on ground floor with console bracketed cornices.”
2021/0490
“A 1980 photo shows the building as a family home in good condition and gives clues to the original form of the boundary wall. A 1986 photo shows the building derelict, almost windowless and with no roof covering as a result of a fire.”
2021/0490
“The current windows date from the 1990s and are considered to be nearing the end of their usable life and thus replacements are appropriate.”
2021/1597
Measured from 23 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 23 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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, 2020–22. · 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 23 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.