Yiyang He.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Waltham Forest with an approval rate of 71% across 308 decided planning applications, spanning 14 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Waltham Forest reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
He's reports move fluidly between narrow GPDO permitted-development compliance checks and design/heritage assessments, and on the latter he is distinctive for citing specific comparable dormer/extension precedents by address ('the one at No. 317, have a more adequate setback and set-in, serving as good precedents') to justify why a proposal falls short of or matches the local pattern, rather than making an abstract character judgement. Within Conservation Areas he treats the combination of poor setback/set-in dimensions and a raised roof ridge as cumulatively unacceptable even where each individual dormer dimension might be tolerated in isolation, and on listed-building consent work he defers explicitly to a named Heritage Officer's own sign-off on materials/methodology rather than reaching an independent design conclusion himself.
· cites specific comparable extensions/dormers by street address as precedents when judging whether a proposal's scale and setback matches the established local pattern
· within Conservation Areas, treats a combination of an inadequately-set-back dormer and a raised roof ridge as cumulatively unacceptable even when neither factor alone might warrant refusal
· on listed-building consent applications, defers explicitly to a named Heritage Officer's own review and sign-off on materials/methodology rather than forming an independent design judgement
· whether comparable dormers/extensions on nearby, named properties provide a good precedent for the proposed scale, setback and set-in
· whether the combination of setback, set-in and any ridge-height change would cumulatively harm the roofscape character of a Conservation Area
· whether the Council's own Heritage Officer has reviewed and signed off the proposed materials and methodology for listed-building fabric
“Dormers in the nearby area, such as the one at No. 317, have a more adequate setback and set-in, serving as good precedents”
241146
“would negatively impact the character and visual amenities of the dwelling and the surrounding area”
241146
“A methodology for the removal of fireplace inserts has been submitted and reviewed by the Heritage Officer”
242878
Measured from 100 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.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 100 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Waltham Forest planning register and published decision notices, 2023–26. · methodology
- [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]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]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 100 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.