Nick Bovaird.
Active — last recorded decision Mar 2026
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 80% across 44 decided planning applications, spanning 12 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×.
Bovaird's corpus concentrates on large-scale commercial/hotel schemes and is unusual for quoting precise BRE daylight/sunlight percentage-loss figures for specific named neighbouring buildings and specific floors, and for structuring the report as a full hypothetical set of conditions across many topics even when recommending refusal.
· quotes precise BRE VSC/APSH percentage-loss figures for specific named buildings and floors rather than a general daylight conclusion
· distinguishes daylight sensitivity of student accommodation from that of C3 residential when weighing the same impact
· documents in full the entire hypothetical conditions set (transport, cycle parking, disabled parking, terraces) that would have applied on approval, even while recommending refusal
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise BRE VSC/APSH percentage-loss figures for each specifically named affected building and floor, not a general daylight statement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the affected use is C3 residential (more daylight-sensitive) or student accommodation (treated as less sensitive)
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the complete hypothetical conditions set across every topic, documented in full even where the ultimate recommendation is refusal
“At Works House, the student accommodation to the south, the impacts are significant, At the ground and first floor windows directly opposite the proposal there is a reduction in absolute levels of VSC from good (around 20 VSC) to low (around 10 VSC). Student accommodation can be considered less sensitive to daylight impacts than C3 residential”
2020/3630
“At 24 Chart Street there are significant proportional impacts to the levels of sunlight available but all but two rooms would retain 25% annual and 5% Winter APSH .”
2020/3630
“Had this recommendation been for approval, a s106 clause would have been proposed excluding prospective employees or future occupiers from applying for a car parking permit in the CPZ”
2020/3630
Measured from 25 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 25 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 12 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 25 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.