Development Intent
AtlasWaltham ForestOfficersNikki Matthews
Planning Atlas›Waltham Forest›Nikki Matthews
Case officer · Waltham Forest Planning

Nikki Matthews.

Last recorded decision Jan 2022 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Waltham Forest with an approval rate of 65% across 323 decided planning applications, spanning 11 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer323 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 →
323
Applications
2020–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%56%202071%202156%2022100%2023
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate65% · 40th 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 Nikki Matthews'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 Nikki Matthews decided — 35 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

CS15Waltham Forest plan
34 times cited
DM29Waltham Forest plan
33 times cited
DM32Waltham Forest plan
30 times cited
DM4Waltham Forest plan
27 times cited
CS13Waltham Forest plan
26 times cited
CS2Waltham Forest plan
7 times cited
CS7Waltham Forest plan
3 times cited
DM7Waltham Forest plan
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
44
65%
40
53%
34
79%
34
73%
29
78%
29
52%
27
64%
27
63%
23
64%
20
70%
15
43%
44
65%
40
53%
34
79%
Show all 11 rows
34
73%
29
78%
29
52%
27
64%
27
63%
23
64%
20
70%
15
43%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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
211707
Full Planning
Approved
2023-03-23
212475
Full Planning
Approved
2023-01-10
211707
Full Planning
Approved
2023-03-23
212475
Full Planning
Approved
2023-01-10
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 323 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Civils Consulting Ltd
2. ZAAVIA DESIGN LTD
3. BLUELINE ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS LTD
4. Smith & Newton Architects Ltd
At a glance
OfficerNikki Matthews
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications323 (2020–22)
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, 2020–22. · 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.