Development Intent
AtlasWaltham ForestOfficersDaniel Forde
Planning Atlas›Waltham Forest›Daniel Forde
Case officer · Waltham Forest Planning

Daniel Forde.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Waltham Forest with an approval rate of 51% across 154 decided planning applications, spanning 12 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer154 decisions51% 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 →
154
Applications
2021–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%56%202349%202449%202550%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate51% · 47th 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 reports22 officer reports parsed
10%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
5%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
87%
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.

Noise & disturbance
2.77× borough avg
Materials & detailing
2.18× borough avg
Character & heritage
2.05× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.91× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.61× borough avg

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

Assigned Daniel Forde 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

“given that this bedroom only falls marginally short of the required 16sqm under Policy 20 and the generous combined living room/kitchen area, officers consider there would be sufficient space within this bedroom for future occupiers without detriment to their residential amenity”

250258

“the latest housing delivery test result (dated 19 December 2023) indicated a score of 103%. This means that there is no significant under delivery of housing within the Borough.”

260841

Measured from 22 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 22 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

57Amenity
6 times cited
53Delivering High Quality Design
6 times cited
12Increasing Housing Supply
5 times cited
D6
5 times cited
60Promoting Sustainable Transport
5 times cited
93Waste Management
5 times cited
G7
5 times cited
19Small Sites
4 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
34
48%
19
60%
19
50%
17
29%
17
60%
16
46%
9
67%
9
67%
7
40%
5
67%
1
–
1
–
34
48%
19
60%
19
50%
Show all 12 rows
17
29%
17
60%
16
46%
9
67%
9
67%
7
40%
5
67%
1
–
1
–

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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
260841
Full Planning
Approved
2026-05-26
260790
Householder Planning
Refused
2026-05-21
260841
Full Planning
Approved
2026-05-26
260790
Householder Planning
Refused
2026-05-21
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 154 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Advance Architecture
2. Resilient Edge Architecture Ltd
3. Civils Consulting Ltd
4. Neo Architects
At a glance
OfficerDaniel Forde
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications154 (2021–26)
Approval rate51%
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, 2021–26. · 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 22 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.