Raymond Okot.
Last recorded decision Apr 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 79% across 390 decided planning applications, spanning 23 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×.
Okot's design conclusions consistently close each policy paragraph with the exact policy numbers complied with, strung together as a single closing sentence ('would comply with LDF core policy 24... DM1... DM2... SPD... policies 7.4... 7.6'), and he cites a specific comparator extension in the immediate terrace by street number to justify scale rather than a general design judgement.
· closes each section with a single sentence stringing together every specific policy number complied with
· cites a specific comparator extension elsewhere in the immediate terrace by street number ('resembles... number 79 Lenthall Road') to justify scale
· assesses a resubmission directly against the specific reasons the earlier scheme was refused, confirming which have been overcome
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific comparator extension elsewhere in the same terrace, named by street number
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a resubmission has specifically overcome the named reasons an earlier scheme on the same site was refused
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the complete list of specific policy numbers a scheme complies with, stated together at the close of each section
“As such, the proposal would comply with LDF core policy 24 (Design), Development Management Local Plan policies DM1 (High Quality Design) and DM2 (Development and Amenity), Hackney Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD and policies 7.4 (Local character) and 7.6 (Architecture) of the London Plan 2016.”
2020/0195
“The proposed development in comparison with the existing situation would appear to be more organised and sympathetic to existing host building. In the context of the existing adjacent and surrounding neighbour extensions with some that appear to be larger than the current development, the proposal is considered not to significantly depart from the design character and appearance of the existing building and other buildings in the terrace. The proposal which resembles the consented ground floor and first floor rear extension at number 79 Lenthall Road in many of its design aspects is considered to relate well with the existing rear streetscene.”
2020/0325
Measured from 296 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 296 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[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, 2020–23. · 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 296 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.