Lorraine Murphy.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 83% across 212 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×.
Murphy's affordable housing sections quote the specific viability figures from a submitted Financial Viability Assessment (deficit or contribution amount) and note the internal Hackney reviewer who checked it, rather than accepting the applicant's figure unexamined. Her housing-mix write-ups tabulate the proposed unit sizes against the policy-required mix directly.
· quotes the specific numeric outcome of a Financial Viability Assessment and names the internal Hackney team that reviewed it
· sets out the proposed unit mix in a direct list against the policy-required mix ratios rather than a general compliance statement
· flags where design officer feedback led to specific requested amendments (roof form, height reduction) and confirms whether those were delivered
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific numeric outcome of a Financial Viability Assessment, and confirmation of which internal team reviewed it
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a direct tabulation of the proposed unit mix against the policy-required dwelling-size ratios
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether specific design-officer-requested amendments (roof form, height) were actually delivered in the revised scheme
“A Financial Viability Assessment (FVA) was provided with the application that concludes that the proposed development cannot contribute to Hackney's affordable housing policy, as the scheme reflects a deficit of �1,722,530.”
2022/2244
“LP14 seeks 33% of preferred dwelling mix to be 3+ beds, a higher percentage of 2 beds than 1 beds and a lower percentage of 1 beds than 2 beds. The proposed housing mix complies with the council's local policy housing mix and is considered acceptable.”
2022/2244
“Design officer comments found that the initial proposal was found to be incongruous in design and disrupted the terrace building line negatively. Further, it was found that the rear extension was not subordinate to the main building and appeared from the drawings the extension infringed on the existing openings that are to be retained. Amendments to the design were requested, seeking for the roof form and height to be altered and reduced.”
2022/2389
Measured from 134 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 134 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 134 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.