Development Intent
AtlasWaltham ForestOfficersJonathan Murray
Case officer · Waltham Forest Planning

Jonathan Murray.

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

A case officer at Waltham Forest with an approval rate of 65% across 298 decided planning applications, spanning 12 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer298 decisions65% 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 →
298
Applications
2020–24
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%61%202067%202172%202265%202350%2024100%2025
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate65% · 39th 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 reports

Not filled in yet — this needs at least 20 of Jonathan Murray'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 Jonathan Murray decided — 27 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

CS15Waltham Forest plan
24 times cited
DM29Waltham Forest plan
23 times cited
DM4Waltham Forest plan
20 times cited
DM32Waltham Forest plan
17 times cited
CS13Waltham Forest plan
6 times cited
DM16Waltham Forest plan
3 times cited
CS1Location andWaltham Forest plan
2 times cited
01SPD / guidance
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
Show all 12 rows
28
75%
21
47%
17
67%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–24.[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
212693
Full Planning
Approved
2025-10-30
232468
Full Planning
Withdrawn
2025-06-06
212693
Full Planning
Approved
2025-10-30
232468
Full Planning
Withdrawn
2025-06-06
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 298 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Resi
2. Civils Consulting Ltd
3. Design Studio E17
4. WB Design Studio LTD
At a glance
OfficerJonathan Murray
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications298 (2020–24)
Approval rate65%
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, 2020–24. · 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 Waltham Forest 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.