Micheal Garvey.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 74% across 659 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×.
Garvey's listed-building casework repeatedly works room-by-room and floor-by-floor through internal alterations, and he is comfortable flagging unauthorised works discovered on site visits (rooflights, removed partitions) as a distinct issue from the application itself. His design write-ups on roof extensions cite specific SPD thresholds (roof-width percentage, set-back from ridge) rather than a general design judgement.
· flags unauthorised/undocumented works found on a site visit as a separate procedural issue rather than folding them into the general design assessment
· cites specific SPD percentage/dimension thresholds (e.g. spanning more than 50% of roof width, set-back from ridge) rather than a general design judgement
· poses direct rhetorical questions about whether a less invasive structural solution would suffice before accepting a more extensive intervention in a listed building
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether unauthorised works are visible on a site visit that the application itself doesn't disclose
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact SPD percentage/dimension a roof extension is measured against, not just a qualitative view
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a less invasive structural approach could have avoided the need for the proposed intervention in a listed building
“The development would significantly breach the guidelines in the SPD, in respect of spanning more than 50% of the roof width and having hardly no set back from the roof ridge. As a consequence, the proposed roof extension would be a dominant feature”
2020/0042
“However, following a site visit there are real concerns the walls to two bedrooms at second floor level have been removed without consent, with only the timber frames exposed. This is unacceptable to remove walls and detrimental to the internal fabric of the listed building.”
2020/0162
“Would the reinstatement of the original structural elements be sufficient to not require the installation of this extent of steel beams? The proposal would affect the internal fabric of the special interest of the listed building as the internal alterations are considered unacceptable”
2020/0162
Measured from 558 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 558 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 558 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.