Development Intent
AtlasWaltham ForestOfficersLeah Moniz
Planning Atlas›Waltham Forest›Leah Moniz
Case officer · Waltham Forest Planning

Leah Moniz.

Last recorded decision Feb 2021 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Waltham Forest with an approval rate of 86% across 94 decided planning applications, spanning 9 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer94 decisions86% 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 →
94
Applications
2020–21
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%83%202092%2021
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate86% · 5th 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 Leah Moniz'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 Leah Moniz decided — 23 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

CS15Waltham Forest plan
22 times cited
DM29Waltham Forest plan
21 times cited
DM4Waltham Forest plan
15 times cited
DM32Waltham Forest plan
9 times cited
CS13Waltham Forest plan
4 times cited
CS2Waltham Forest plan
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
16
100%
14
83%
13
70%
11
86%
10
78%
10
88%
7
83%
7
100%
6
83%
16
100%
14
83%
13
70%
Show all 9 rows
11
86%
10
78%
10
88%
7
83%
7
100%
6
83%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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
203887
Householder Planning
Approved
2021-04-12
210430
Householder Planning
Approved
2021-04-11
203887
Householder Planning
Approved
2021-04-12
210430
Householder Planning
Approved
2021-04-11
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 94 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Maggie Tanner Architects
2. Resi
3. Potter Raper Ltd
4. Prime Meridian Ltd
At a glance
OfficerLeah Moniz
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications94 (2020–21)
Approval rate86%
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, 2020–21. · 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.