Development Intent
AtlasHackneyOfficersClaire Moore
Planning Atlas›Hackney›Claire Moore
Case officer · Hackney Planning

Claire Moore.

Last recorded decision Jul 2021 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 68% across 113 decided planning applications, spanning 21 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer113 decisions68% approvalSave
Hackney · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
113
Applications
2020–21
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%58%202074%2021
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate68% · 42nd of 52
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports108 officer reports parsed
11%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
9%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
6%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
70%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Hackney's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Hackney reports. Attention, not stance.

Transport & parking
1.52× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.28× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.08× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
0.97× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Moore's amenity sections track a proposal's impact against each individually named adjoining property in turn, explicitly comparing the proposed and existing finished floor levels rather than just heights, and she is comfortable citing a related retrospective permission on the same site (a different reference number) as directly relevant context.

Observable habits

· compares proposed and existing FINISHED FLOOR LEVELS between neighbouring extensions, not just their heights

· cross-references a related retrospective permission (different reference) on the same site as directly relevant context

· counts the specific arboricultural report's named tree references (T01, T02 etc.) individually rather than a general tree statement

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the finished floor level of a proposed extension compared against the neighbouring extension's own finished floor level, not just relative height

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a related retrospective permission on the same site under a different reference number

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: individual tree references (T01, T02, etc.) from the arboricultural report addressed one by one rather than as a block

Assigned Claire Moore on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“The proposed extension will extend approximately 1.4 metres beyond the rear elevation of the existing extension at no. 31, and will have a height of 3 metres, noting that the finished floor level of the extension at no. 31 is sited above the proposed finished floor level.”

2020/0009

“Moreover, retrospective permission has been granted for this amalgamation under reference no. 2020/0008.”

2020/0009

“This indicates that a protection plan and construction works can be undertaken in a manner in which the health of trees both within the site, and on neighbouring properties, will be protected.”

2020/0060

Measured from 108 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 108 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

LP24Preventing the Loss of Housing
6 times cited
A1
5 times cited
A2
5 times cited
23.00
3 times cited
7.4
2 times cited
7.6
2 times cited
T02
1 times cited
T03
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
10
89%
10
78%
8
43%
8
63%
8
43%
7
50%
7
67%
7
71%
7
86%
6
33%
6
80%
6
50%
4
100%
4
100%
3
33%
3
100%
3
100%
2
50%
2
100%
1
100%
1
–
10
89%
10
78%
8
43%
Show all 21 rows
8
63%
8
43%
7
50%
7
67%
7
71%
7
86%
6
33%
6
80%
6
50%
4
100%
4
100%
3
33%
3
100%
3
100%
2
50%
2
100%
1
100%
1
–

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
2021/1569
Full Planning Permission
Withdrawn
2023-12-05
2020/3685
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2021-12-21
2021/1569
Full Planning Permission
Withdrawn
2023-12-05
2020/3685
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2021-12-21
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 113 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. SAM Planning Services
2. Design Squared Ltd
3. John Stebbing Architects Ltd
4. ` Four Architecture & Design (London) Ltd (Four Architecture & Design (London) Ltd)
At a glance
OfficerClaire Moore
BoroughHackney
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications113 (2020–21)
Approval rate68%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Hackney planning register and published decision notices, 2020–21. · methodology
  2. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 108 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.