Simone Ward.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 73% across 148 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×.
Ward's larger commercial/hotel-scale casework works methodically through a named checklist of transport sub-topics (Access, Trip Generation, Car Parking, Blue Badge, Cycle Parking, CMP) each as its own labelled section, and even on a refusal she documents in detail what conditions WOULD have applied had the scheme been approved — showing the full conditional analysis rather than stopping at the refusal reason.
· splits transport impact into a fixed sequence of named sub-topics (Access/Trip Generation/Car Parking/Blue Badge/Cycle Parking/CMP) rather than one combined transport section
· documents in full detail the conditions that WOULD have been attached had a refused scheme instead been approved, rather than stopping analysis at the refusal reason
· cites the specific BRE daylight/sunlight test's window and room counts (e.g. '70 windows serving 41 rooms') even in a refusal recommendation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each transport sub-topic (access, trip generation, parking, Blue Badge, cycling, CMP) addressed as its own distinct section
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the full set of conditions that would have applied had a refused scheme been approved, not just the refusal reasons
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise window and room counts tested in a BRE daylight/sunlight assessment, even where the overall recommendation is refusal
“A daylight and sunlight assessment was submitted in line with BRE guidelines, evaluating 70 windows serving 41 rooms in neighbouring properties. The results indicate that 91% of the windows (64) and 95% of the rooms (39) meet the BRE targets.”
2023/1831
“Had the application been considered acceptable a condition requiring the development to achieve BREEAM `Excellent' would be attached to the planning permission.”
2023/1831
“Had the application been deemed acceptable, a condition would have been imposed requiring further details on the design, capacity, and management of the refuse storage to ensure it meets policy requirements.”
2023/1831
Measured from 89 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 89 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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, 2022–26. · 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 89 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.