Alishba Emanuel.
Last recorded decision Jul 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 68% across 155 decided planning applications, spanning 20 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×.
Emanuel's re-submission casework explicitly cross-references the specific prior application reference that was refused and states precisely what has changed to address the refusal reasons. Her Certificate of Lawfulness cases quote a wide inventory of specific documentary evidence types by name (tenancy logs, council tax bands, deposit protection records) rather than a general evidence summary.
· cross-references the exact prior refused application reference and states specifically what has changed to address the refusal reasons
· itemises the specific documentary evidence types submitted for a lawfulness certificate (tenancy log, council tax band, deposit protection) rather than summarising generally
· explicitly reduces the size of a contested element (e.g. a roof terrace) between resubmissions and assesses whether the reduction is sufficient
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific prior refused application reference and exactly what has changed to address each refusal reason
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a full itemised inventory of the specific documentary evidence types submitted (not just 'sufficient evidence')
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed change moves a use into a historically higher-status room, treated as a distinct heritage concern from the works themselves
“The application relates to the previously refused application `2021/2500' the application has reduced the size of the roof terrace and inserted a privacy screen with the aim of addressing the previous reasons for refusal.”
2022/0030
“Tenancy Agreement attached to Sworn Affidavit Tenancy Agreement including rent book log dated: 2015-2016 2017-2018 2020-2021”
2022/1142
“As existing, the kitchen is located within the basement, which is the traditional location for the service areas of early nineteenth-century terraced houses. The ground floor rooms are areas of higher status, which is reflected in their architectural details such as the decorative cornice.”
2022/1171
Measured from 138 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 138 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 20 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–23.[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, 2022–23. · 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 138 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.