Sarah Creasy.
Recently active — last recorded decision Aug 2025
A case officer at Waltham Forest with an approval rate of 71% across 325 decided planning applications, spanning 14 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Creasy's caseload spans GPDO Class A/B certificates and full householder applications, and she is distinctive for running a genuinely forensic cross-plan consistency audit on contested applications — comparing the exact stated depth and height across MULTIPLE different submitted drawings (section, elevation, roof plan) sheet by sheet and flagging every numerical discrepancy between them, before concluding the application cannot be properly assessed and should be refused for inaccurate/inconsistent plans rather than on the underlying planning merits. On retrospective Certificate of Lawfulness applications she applies the section 191(4)/191(2) 'sufficiently precise and unambiguous' evidential standard rigorously, finding blurry or illegible submitted photographic evidence insufficient even where supplemented by Google Earth aerial imagery.
· cross-checks the exact stated depth and height figures across MULTIPLE different submitted drawing sheets (section, elevation, roof plan) sheet by sheet, flagging every specific numerical discrepancy between them rather than accepting the application form's headline figures
· concludes that genuinely inconsistent/inaccurate plans mean the application 'could not be properly assessed' and recommends refusal on that procedural ground, distinct from and prior to any substantive amenity or design judgement
· on retrospective Certificate of Lawfulness applications, applies the section 191(4)/191(2) 'sufficiently precise and unambiguous' evidential standard rigorously, finding blurry or illegible photographic evidence insufficient even where aerial imagery is also available
· whether the exact stated depth and height figures are consistent across every submitted drawing sheet (section, elevation, roof plan), flagging any numerical discrepancy
· whether inconsistent or inaccurate plans mean a genuine planning-merits assessment cannot be properly made at all
· whether retrospective photographic or other evidence meets the section 191(4)/191(2) 'sufficiently precise and unambiguous' standard, rather than being merely suggestive
“the significant inconsistencies found across both existing and proposed plans as part of this application, it is considered a thorough and adequate assessment of the proposed development could not be made”
241673
“these screenshots are blurry and illegible and therefore do not prove that the construction occurred over 4 years ago”
242987
Measured from 61 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 61 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–25.[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, 2022–25. · 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 61 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.