Kathy Lui.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Waltham Forest with an approval rate of 71% across 142 decided planning applications, spanning 15 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×.
Lui's caseload is dominated by GPDO Class B roof-dormer certificates and rear/side extensions, and on full applications she runs a distinctive neighbour-by-neighbour comparative structure, naming each affected adjoining property by address and comparing the proposal's precise protrusion in metres against that SPECIFIC neighbour's own existing extension depth, before reaching an individual amenity finding per property. On flat-conversion applications she runs a detailed 'Does not comply' shortfall table stating the exact sqm gap against the National Described Space Standard for both the existing (already substandard) unit and the proposed unit, explicitly quantifying how much the shortfall would WORSEN as a result of the scheme.
· structures neighbouring-amenity assessment by NAMED address, comparing the proposal's exact protrusion in metres against that specific neighbour's own existing extension depth before reaching an individual per-property finding
· on flat conversions/intensifications, states the precise sqm shortfall against National Described Space Standards for BOTH the existing (already substandard) unit and the proposed unit, quantifying exactly how much the shortfall would worsen
· notes the precise eaves height in metres at each of several different neighbouring boundaries where the extension's height varies from side to side (e.g. '2.66m (eaves at No.27); 2.4m (eaves at No.23)')
· the specific named neighbouring address and its own existing extension depth in metres, compared directly against the proposal's protrusion
· the precise sqm shortfall against National Described Space Standards for both the existing and the proposed unit, and how much a scheme would worsen an already-substandard dwelling
· the differing eaves height in metres at each affected neighbouring boundary where a scheme's height is not uniform
“The extension would protrude 3m beyond the rear wall of the outrigger at No.29 and 9.7m beyond the host building. However, the proposed eaves height is 2.4m, which is not much higher than the existing fence.”
252314
“While the existing flat is also substandard by 5.6sqm, this proposal would significantly increase the substandard nature of the accommodation by 14.5sqm below the minimum GIA standard.”
260682
Measured from 77 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 77 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 15 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[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, 2025–26. · 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 77 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.