Elsie Morgan.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Waltham Forest with an approval rate of 76% across 63 decided planning applications, spanning 12 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×.
Morgan's caseload spans HMO/lawful-use certificates and GPDO Class B dormer certificates, and on retrospective HMO evidence she runs a room-by-room tenancy-agreement date-range audit (naming each individual room and its specific tenancy period) rather than treating the property's HMO status as a single undifferentiated fact, and explicitly acknowledges gaps between tenancy agreements without treating a gap alone as evidence of cessation. On GPDO Class B volume calculations she is precise about noting when officers have independently RE-CALCULATED the cubic volume from the elevation plans and found it does NOT match the applicant's own submitted volume calculator figure, treating the officer's own re-measurement as authoritative over the applicant's figure.
· runs a room-by-room tenancy-agreement date-range audit for retrospective HMO evidence, naming each individual room and its specific tenancy period rather than treating HMO status as a single undifferentiated fact
· explicitly acknowledges gaps between tenancy agreements for individual rooms without treating a gap alone as sufficient evidence that HMO use had ceased
· independently re-calculates GPDO Class B cubic roof volume from the submitted elevation plans and treats this officer re-measurement as authoritative where it diverges from the applicant's own submitted volume calculator figure
· the specific tenancy period for EACH individual room in a claimed HMO, rather than a single undifferentiated period for the whole property
· whether a gap between tenancy agreements genuinely evidences cessation of HMO use, or is consistent with tenancies rolling beyond their initial contract period
· whether the applicant's own submitted GPDO volume calculator figure matches an independent officer re-calculation from the submitted elevation plans
“The tenancy agreements do show some vacancies within the rooms over points in time, however the Local Planning Authority accepts that this does not in itself evidence cesariron of the use as a HMO.”
240407
“It is acknowledged that the applicant has provided a volume calculator, however these measurements do not correlate with measurements taken from the proposed elevations.”
250038
Measured from 25 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 25 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 12 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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, 2021–26. · 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 25 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.