Development Intent
AtlasWaltham ForestOfficersZara Raza
Case officer · Waltham Forest Planning

Zara Raza.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Waltham Forest with an approval rate of 82% across 451 decided planning applications, spanning 13 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer451 decisions82% 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 →
451
Applications
2022–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%82%202375%202481%202592%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate82% · 9th 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 reports142 officer reports parsed
1%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
2%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
1%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
54%
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.

Outlook & amenity
1.37× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.06× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.01× borough avg
Transport & parking
0.95× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
0.91× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Raza's caseload is dominated by GPDO Class B roof-dormer permitted-development checklists and HMO/Sui Generis use-class disputes, and her reasoning is distinctive for treating the underlying use-class question (whether a property is genuinely a single household under C3(c) versus an unregistered large HMO under Sui Generis) as a threshold fact-finding exercise before any planning-merits assessment begins, cross-checking submitted floorplans against her own site-visit observations and flagging discrepancies between the two rather than accepting either at face value. On full applications she runs the space-standards and neighbouring-amenity assessment methodically against the Waltham Forest Local Plan's own numbered policies (53, 56, 57), and on HMO Certificate-of-Lawfulness cases she applies a similarly forensic evidence-gap approach, building a tenant-by-tenant occupancy table from submitted documents and explicitly naming the gaps in the evidential chain rather than giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt.

Observable habits

· on HMO/Sui Generis use-class disputes, verifies the submitted floorplan's bedroom count against her own site-visit observation before accepting the applicant's stated use class

· on Certificate of Lawfulness (HMO) applications, builds a tenant/room occupancy table from the submitted evidence and explicitly identifies the date gaps that break continuous-use, rather than assuming continuity

· on full applications with multiple flats, runs the Local Plan's own numbered space-standard policies (53, 56, 57) unit-by-unit in a comparison table before reaching a conclusion on residential amenity

What their reports consistently look for

· whether the submitted plans' room count and layout match what officers actually observed on a site visit, before accepting the stated use class

· whether the tenancy/occupancy evidence submitted for a Certificate of Lawfulness covers the full required period without unexplained gaps

· whether each proposed unit's GIA, bedroom sizes and external amenity space meet the Local Plan's own numbered space-standard policies

Assigned Zara Raza 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

The layout of the property is consistent with a HMO use under sui generis class as there are more than six bedrooms

230693

the proposed development, given the design, layout, scale and materials of the proposed additions to the site, they would be acceptable within the existing urban form

232940

It is clear that there are gaps in the occupancy of the building during this time from 2014

232730

Measured from 142 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 142 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

53Delivering High Quality Design
56 times cited
79Biodiversity and Geodiversity
51 times cited
57Amenity
44 times cited
D6
8 times cited
56Residential Space Standards
7 times cited
DM29
5 times cited
93Waste Management
4 times cited
80Trees
4 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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
260835
Householder Planning
Approved
2026-06-02
260896
Householder Planning
Approved
2026-06-02
260835
Householder Planning
Approved
2026-06-02
260896
Householder Planning
Approved
2026-06-02
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 451 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Archway Building Consultancy Limited
2. Civils Consulting Ltd
3. Resi Design Ltd
4. LONDON CONSULTANTS LTD
At a glance
OfficerZara Raza
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications451 (2022–26)
Approval rate82%
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, 2022–26. · 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 142 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.