Development Intent
AtlasHackneyOfficersMatthew Hollins
Planning Atlas›Hackney›Matthew Hollins
Case officer · Hackney Planning

Matthew Hollins.

Last recorded decision Jun 2024 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 72% across 122 decided planning applications, spanning 20 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer122 decisions72% 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 →
122
Applications
2021–24
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%80%202369%2024
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate72% · 36th 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 reports92 officer reports parsed
23%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
12%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
34%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
64%
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.

Daylight & sunlight
1.84× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.84× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.39× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.2× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
1.14× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Hollins's window-replacement cases are precise about the exact material specified by the applicant versus what neighbours objected to (distinguishing UPVC concerns from an actual timber proposal), and his plant/AHU casework measures the exact separation distance in metres from the nearest affected residential window before concluding on amenity impact.

Observable habits

· distinguishes what neighbours OBJECTED to (assuming UPVC) from what was ACTUALLY proposed (timber), correcting the record rather than dismissing the objection

· states the precise separation distance in metres between plant equipment and the nearest affected residential window

· explains the technical mechanism of a proposed system (e.g. how an AHU's heat exchanger reduces energy use) rather than a general sustainability endorsement

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether neighbour objections have correctly identified what is actually being proposed (e.g. UPVC vs timber), correcting misapprehensions rather than dismissing the objection

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise separation distance in metres between new plant equipment and the nearest affected residential window

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: how a proposed mechanical system technically works (heat exchange, airflow) before endorsing it on sustainability grounds

Assigned Matthew Hollins 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

“Three responses were received in response to the application; two responses stated their concern regarding the installation of uPVC windows. It appears in the first instance that the application referred to uPVC windows. However, it is proposed to install double glazed timber frame windows, which are considered acceptable in the Conservation Area”

2021/3062

“It can be seen from the drawings that the proposed AHU is approximately twelve metres from the rear windows, whilst the ducting at its closest point will be ten metres from the rear windows.”

2022/0045

“in the exchanger, the indoor and outdoor air is mixed, so that when the air reaches the coil the temperature contrast is lower, therefore, the climatic contribution is also lower and energy consumption is also reduced”

2022/0045

Measured from 92 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 92 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

LP1Part A will be applied having regard to the scale and location of the
65 times cited
LP2Development and Amenity
64 times cited
D4Allocation: Mixed-use including residential
59 times cited
LP54Overheating and Adapting to Climate Change
58 times cited
D1130 Kingsland High Street and site to the rear 130A Kingsland High
54 times cited
LP55Mitigating Climate Change
54 times cited
D3Allocation: Mixed-use including residential
50 times cited
G6
44 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
13
56%
11
89%
11
100%
10
50%
9
86%
7
29%
7
100%
7
57%
6
83%
6
83%
5
100%
5
100%
4
50%
4
33%
4
75%
4
50%
4
75%
3
100%
1
0%
1
100%
13
56%
11
89%
11
100%
Show all 20 rows
10
50%
9
86%
7
29%
7
100%
7
57%
6
83%
6
83%
5
100%
5
100%
4
50%
4
33%
4
75%
4
50%
4
75%
3
100%
1
0%
1
100%

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
2021/0723
Full Planning Permission
Withdrawn
2025-01-17
2021/3439
Full Planning Permission
Withdrawn
2025-01-17
2021/0723
Full Planning Permission
Withdrawn
2025-01-17
2021/3439
Full Planning Permission
Withdrawn
2025-01-17
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 122 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. SAM Planning services
2. Eade Planning Ltd
3. Redwoods Projects
4. Stace LLP
At a glance
OfficerMatthew Hollins
BoroughHackney
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications122 (2021–24)
Approval rate72%
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, 2021–24. · 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 92 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.