Development Intent
AtlasHillingdonOfficersPedro Rizo
Case officer · Hillingdon Planning

Pedro Rizo.

Last recorded decision Sep 2024 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Hillingdon with an approval rate of 95% across 40 decided planning applications, spanning 11 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer40 decisions95% approvalSave
Hillingdon · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
40
Applications
2023–24
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average

Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.

What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate95% · 6th of 59
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports

Not filled in yet — this needs at least 20 of Pedro Rizo's own officer reports parsed, and their reports haven't reached that threshold in the parsing run. It fills automatically as parsing progresses; nothing is estimated in its place.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies cited most on decision notices for applications Pedro Rizo decided — 30 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

DMHB11Design of New DevelopmentHillingdon plan
12 times cited
DMT2Highways ImpactsHillingdon plan
6 times cited
DMHB14Trees and LandscapingHillingdon plan
6 times cited
D5London Plan
5 times cited
DMEI1Living Walls and Roofs and on-site VegetationHillingdon plan
5 times cited
DMT1Managing Transport ImpactsHillingdon plan
4 times cited
T4London Plan
4 times cited
DMT6Vehicle ParkingHillingdon plan
4 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–24.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
54986/APP/2024/1796
Planning Application
Approved
2024-11-07
14805/APP/2024/2530
Planning Application
Approved
2024-10-21
54986/APP/2024/1796
Planning Application
Approved
2024-11-07
14805/APP/2024/2530
Planning Application
Approved
2024-10-21
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 40 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Mr Tyrrell Moor House Farm Estate Lower Road Higher Denham Uxbridge UB9
2. Mr Ray Reilly RPR Planning Studio
3. Mr John Snow Tetrick Planning Limited Build Studios
4. Mr Max Plotnek MJP Planning Limited Market Pekham
At a glance
OfficerPedro Rizo
BoroughHillingdon
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications40 (2023–24)
Approval rate95%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Hillingdon planning register and published decision notices, 2023–24. · methodology
  2. [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. [3]Condition load — mean effective conditions attached to Hillingdon decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
  4. [4]Policy citations will be coded from officer reports against the adopted Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF — that parsing has not run for this borough yet.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.