Development Intent
AtlasWaltham ForestOfficersCyrus Wong
Case officer · Waltham Forest Planning

Cyrus Wong.

Recently active — last recorded decision Apr 2025

A case officer at Waltham Forest with an approval rate of 63% across 291 decided planning applications, spanning 14 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer291 decisions63% approvalSave
Waltham Forest · 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 →
291
Applications
2021–25
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%85%202260%202361%202459%2025
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate63% · 41st of 49
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 reports44 officer reports parsed
10%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
14%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
9%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
65%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Waltham Forest's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Waltham Forest reports. Attention, not stance.

Energy & sustainability
2.04× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.31× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.25× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.23× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.09× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Wong's caseload spans GPDO certificates, new dwellinghouses and HMO lawful-use determinations, and on new-build/garden-subdivision schemes he consistently proposes a PLANNING CONDITION restricting future GPDO permitted development rights (Classes A/E) at the newly-reduced-garden plot, explicitly reasoning that the amenity space provision only 'just meets' or is 'slightly above' the minimum and would need protecting from further erosion. On HMO Certificate-of-Lawfulness cases he applies a structured cross-checking method across MULTIPLE independent evidence types (council documents, invoices, booking confirmations, inspection sheets, tenant letters) checking that they corroborate each other rather than relying on any single evidence source.

Observable habits

· where amenity space provision only just meets or is slightly above the minimum requirement following a subdivision or new dwelling scheme, proposes a planning condition removing GPDO permitted development rights (Classes A/E) at that plot to protect the margin from future erosion

· cross-checks MULTIPLE independent evidence types (council documents, invoices, booking confirmations, property inspection sheets, tenant letters) for corroboration with each other before accepting an HMO lawful-use claim, rather than relying on any single evidence source

· notes explicitly when a scheme falls short of a specific numeric percentage of a space standard (e.g. 'fall short of nearly 25% of the requirement') while still finding the scheme acceptable on balance given good room layout and common area quality

What their reports consistently look for

· whether the resultant amenity space provision only narrowly meets the minimum requirement, warranting a condition removing future GPDO permitted development rights

· whether multiple independent evidence types (invoices, tenancy records, inspection sheets, letters) corroborate each other for an HMO lawful-use claim

· the precise percentage shortfall against a space standard, balanced against the qualitative merit of room layout and common areas

Assigned Cyrus Wong on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

in the event of approval, it is recommendated to attach a planning condition to prohibit any residential extensions or alterations at the existing unit (No.33) under Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 without planning permission having first been obtained

231943

the applicant provided over 600 supporting evidence including Councils documents and invoices, Booking and Cancellation Confirmations, Property Inspection Sheets, Tenant Letters etc, all of which corroborated with another

241851

Measured from 44 published Waltham Forest 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 44 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4
17 times cited
53Delivering High Quality Design
10 times cited
DM4
9 times cited
57Amenity
9 times cited
56Residential Space Standards
7 times cited
DM29
7 times cited
DM32
6 times cited
59Advertisements, Hoardings and Signage
6 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–25.[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
243068
Full Planning
Refused
2025-07-04
242979
Full Planning
Refused
2025-05-19
243068
Full Planning
Refused
2025-07-04
242979
Full Planning
Refused
2025-05-19
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 291 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Space 120 Architects
2. Resi
3. Maggie Tanner Architects
4. Civils Consulting Ltd
At a glance
OfficerCyrus Wong
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications291 (2021–25)
Approval rate63%
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 Waltham Forest planning register and published decision notices, 2021–25. · 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 Waltham Forest decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
  4. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 44 published Waltham Forest 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.