Development Intent
AtlasHackneyOfficersKim Aukett
Case officer · Hackney Planning

Kim Aukett.

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

A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 78% across 152 decided planning applications, spanning 21 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer152 decisions78% 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 →
152
Applications
2020–21
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%81%202076%2021
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate78% · 27th 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 reports135 officer reports parsed
35%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
3%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
75%
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.

Trees & landscape
2.86× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.45× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.27× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.15× borough avg
Bulk & massing
0.99× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Aukett's basement casework tracks explicitly how a scheme evolved from a previously refused version, naming both prior refused references and stating exactly which elements were removed to overcome each specific reason. She distinguishes room types by whether they receive natural light at all, treating a windowless ancillary room differently from a habitable room lacking full compliance.

Observable habits

· names both prior refused application references on a site and states exactly which specific elements were removed to address each

· distinguishes windowless ancillary rooms (storage, workshop) from habitable rooms with partial daylight non-compliance, applying different standards to each

· assesses continuity of documentary evidence (tenancy agreements, council tax records) and explicitly flags a missing year as a gap rather than treating gaps as forgivable

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact prior refused reference(s) on a site and precisely which elements were removed or changed to address each refusal reason

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a basement room is habitable (needs full daylight assessment) or purely ancillary (storage/workshop, more tolerant standard)

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a gap-free run of tenancy/council-tax evidence, explicitly flagging any missing year as insufficient rather than assuming continuity

Assigned Kim Aukett 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

Changes have been made to the proposal in response to the refusal reasons for planning applications references 2019/3671 & 2019/1889. The part of the basement that extended into the rear yard has been removed, reducing the proposed floor space in the basement.

2020/0114

The proposed bedroom and workshop have daylight access via lightwells, however the quality of daylight/sunlight access to these rooms and the outlook is poor. The storage room and kitchenette would not receive any natural light. In this case, as it is providing ancillary residential floor space to the existing dwellinghouse, it is considered to be acceptable.

2020/0114

The evidence provided in support of the application is minimal, and there is a year missing in terms of the tenancy agreements. There are no Council tax records for the basement flat. The evidence provided does not satisfactorily demonstrate continued use of the basement and ground floors as two separate flats for a four year period.

2020/0153

Measured from 135 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 135 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

LP2Development and Amenity
57 times cited
LP1Part A will be applied having regard to the scale and location of the
49 times cited
7.6
30 times cited
7.4
29 times cited
D3Allocation: Mixed-use including residential
27 times cited
D6Allocation: Retail/market uses
21 times cited
LP55Mitigating Climate Change
18 times cited
SI 1
18 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

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
2021/2439
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2021-10-14
2021/1632
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2021-09-09
2021/2439
Full Planning Permission
Refused
2021-10-14
2021/1632
Full Planning Permission
Approved
2021-09-09
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 152 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Redwoods Projects Ltd
2. SAM Planning services
3. Archway Building Consultancy
4. MoreSpace
At a glance
OfficerKim Aukett
BoroughHackney
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications152 (2020–21)
Approval rate78%
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 135 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.