Livi Whyte.
Last recorded decision Jul 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 76% across 84 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×.
Whyte's refusals are explicit about the applicant's own submitted 45-degree-line evidence being found insufficiently robust to change the conclusion, and she assesses which specific existing habitable rooms would be affected floor-by-floor rather than a single blended outlook conclusion.
· explicitly states when the applicant's own submitted evidence (e.g. a 45-degree line diagram) is found not robust enough to be persuasive, rather than accepting it at face value
· assesses outlook/daylight impact floor-by-floor for each affected unit rather than one blended conclusion
· flags when a conservation-area heritage feature (e.g. a fence) lacks documented lawful establishment before accepting a claimed historic precedent
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the applicant's own submitted technical evidence (e.g. 45-degree line diagrams) is actually robust enough to support their conclusion, not accepted automatically
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: floor-by-floor and unit-by-unit outlook impact, not a single building-wide conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: documented evidence that a claimed historic feature was lawfully established before treating it as a valid precedent
“The applicant has provided a 45 degree line on the proposed section plans however officers considered this not to be a robust demonstration that the proposed development would not impact on the neighbouring occupiers levels of light and therefore raise objection on these grounds.”
2022/2997
“As existing Flat 2's outlook is partially obscured as the existing rear extension terminates approximately 0.5m shy of the top of the window at a distance of some 4m from the window. The proposed development would build up a further storey completely obscuring the window to Flat 2 which serves a Living room/kitchen and is their only habitable space”
2022/2997
“Whilst it is acknowledged based on historical images, there was previously a similar fence in the same location, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the fence was lawfully established and there are no available Council records in relation to the fence.”
2023/0876
Measured from 68 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 68 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–24.[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, 2021–24. · 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 68 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.