Zarreen Hadadi.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 90% across 188 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×.
Hadadi's design assessments habitually name two or more specific precedent applications by reference number for a proposed extension type, and she is explicit when an appeal decision on a neighbouring site (rather than just an officer approval) is the operative precedent she is following.
· names two or more specific comparator applications by reference number in the same sentence as the design conclusion
· distinguishes an appeal-allowed precedent from an officer-approved one and treats the former as the more binding comparator
· checks HMO-to-single-dwelling conversions against the permitted-development fallback position, not just full planning policy
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: two or more named comparator applications, by reference number, for the same type of extension
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the operative precedent was decided by an Inspector at appeal rather than just approved by an officer
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the permitted-development fallback position for HMO/C4 conversions, not only the full-planning-permission policy tests
“It is in keeping with several other properties within the terrace with recent similar scale extensions including No. 83 Olinda Road (2021/3502), No.85 (2021/2347) and No. 87 Olinda Road (2022/2827).”
2024/2448
“Furthermore, a similar extension at No. 13 (2019/1152) was allowed at appeal.”
2024/2516
“given that the site at 145 Mount Pleasant has Permitted Development rights, the current proposal would need to be considered to meet the terms below as a realistic fallback option.”
2024/2639
Measured from 159 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 159 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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, 2022–26. · 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 159 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.