Sophie Brocklesby.
Recently active — last recorded decision Nov 2024
A case officer at Hackney with an approval rate of 77% across 77 decided planning applications, spanning 19 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×.
Brocklesby's Certificate-of-Lawfulness refusals itemise the exact gap length in months/years for each individual flat's tenancy evidence, rather than a general 'insufficient evidence' statement, and she is explicit that missing evidence for even one unit (of several) undermines the whole certificate.
· itemises the exact length of each specific tenancy-evidence gap, unit by unit, rather than a general insufficiency statement
· treats missing evidence for even ONE unit among several as undermining the whole certificate application, not just that unit
· cross-checks Council Tax band records against the applicant's claimed unit count to spot inconsistencies
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact length of each individual unit's tenancy-evidence gap, itemised rather than summarised
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether EVERY unit in a multi-unit certificate has continuous evidence — one missing unit is treated as fatal to the whole application
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether Council Tax band records match the applicant's claimed number of self-contained units
“it is clear that Flat A has been rented from 2018 until 2024, however there is a four month gap in tenancy agreements from 01/01/2021 to 20/05/2021. In addition, there is a two year gap from 01/06/2018 to 23/11/2020 for Flat B, an eight month gap from 18/08/2018 to 01/04/2019 for Flat D”
2023/1825
“It is noted that there is no evidence for flat C. No piece of evidence has shown that any flat has been in continuous use as self-contained residential dwelling for a period of four years or more prior to the date of this application.”
2023/1825
“The Council Tax band register has the property listed as two flats, not six, as follows: Flat Second Floor; 174 Clarence Road; and 174 Clarence Road”
2023/1825
Measured from 67 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 67 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 19 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–24.[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, 2022–24. · 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 67 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.