Erin Glancy.
Last recorded decision Feb 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 74% across 459 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×.
Glancy's reports handle a heavier share of major/listed-building casework, and she opens design sections by quoting the applicable SPD paragraph number verbatim (e.g. 'Part 3.67 of the SPD states...') before applying it. Her heritage assessments quote full statutory listing descriptions of the building at length before assessing the proposal against them.
· quotes the specific SPD paragraph number verbatim before applying it to the facts
· reproduces the full statutory listing description of a heritage asset at length before assessing impact
· explicitly logs a chronology of CUDS (conservation/design team) review-and-revision rounds when a scheme has been amended in response to comments
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific numbered SPD paragraph a design judgement rests on, quoted directly
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the complete statutory listing description as the starting point for any heritage impact assessment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a documented chronology of design-team review rounds and what specifically changed at each stage
“Part 3.67 of the SPD states that all roof alterations and extensions should accord with the general design principles, reflecting the design of the original building and having regard to the character of the area and the amenity of neighbours.”
2020/3124
“On the 10/03/2021 CUDS reviewed the proposal and made the following comments "The infill and the glazing to the edge of the balcony should be set back by 1m. The applicant submitted revised plans on the 20/04/2021 which showed the enclosed extension (at second floor level) setback by 0.8m. CUDS reviewed these on 08/07/2021 and advised that if the enclosed extension would be visible then the plans should be revised to 1m setback.”
2020/3308
“This building is listed at Grade II* as part of a group including Numbers 187, 189 and 191 (LEN: 1235537). The relevant part of the listing reads: "Early C18 large scale composition of 3 houses, the centre one projecting, touching at corners.”
2020/3441
Measured from 412 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 412 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 412 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.