Lasse Lottgen.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 90% across 197 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×.
Lottgen quotes the specific SPD paragraph number verbatim when a conservation area's roofline continuity is at issue, and is willing to refuse solely on a missing energy statement where a scheme's floor typology changes, treating that omission as blocking a complete sustainability assessment rather than a minor gap.
· quotes the specific numbered SPD paragraph verbatim when assessing roofline continuity in a conservation area
· treats a missing energy statement as blocking a complete assessment (and grounds for refusal) rather than as a minor omission to condition around
· explicitly counts the number of buildings in a terrace with an unbroken roofline before ruling a proposed extension out
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific SPD paragraph number governing roofline continuity, quoted directly, before ruling on a mansard proposal
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a submitted energy statement wherever a scheme changes the number or typology of units — absence blocks a complete assessment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether existing hardstanding already exempts a site from biodiversity net gain requirements
“Paragraph 3.85 of the council's Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD states that `the continuity of the parapet line is an important townscape feature of early/mid-Victorian streets and is typical of the street scene. For this reason, roof extensions are not normally acceptable in those terraces where an unbroken roof line remains'.”
2024/0570
“The council did not receive an energy statement in support of the application, meaning a complete assessment of the impacts on sustainability, with specific regard to overheating and minimising greenhouse gas emissions could not be made. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to LP33 policy LP55”
2024/0570
“The development is not liable for BNG owing to the provision (area) of existing hardstanding around the outrigger of the application site.”
2024/2258
Measured from 154 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 154 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–26.[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, 2024–26. · 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 154 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.