Tia Olivo.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Waltham Forest with an approval rate of 59% across 235 decided planning applications, spanning 13 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×.
Olivo has a comparatively high refusal share among the coded officers (18 of 51 sampled) with a caseload spanning larger new-build dwellings and flat/HMO conversions, and she consistently presents the full London Plan required-vs-proposed GIA/bedroom-size/amenity-space table for every application before reaching a design or amenity finding, treating each dwelling type's national space standard as the explicit numeric anchor. On design she is willing to find a scheme 'top-heavy' or 'dominating' relative to the street even where individual design cues (front bays, dormers) are individually drawn from existing local features, distinguishing between echoing local features and exaggerating them to an incongruous degree.
· presents the full London Plan required-vs-proposed GIA/bedroom-size/private-amenity-space table for essentially every application before reaching any design or amenity finding, anchoring the assessment in the specific national space standard for that dwelling type
· distinguishes between a design that echoes existing local features (front bays, dormers) and one that exaggerates those same cues to an incongruous, 'top-heavy' or 'dominating' degree relative to the street
· on single-aspect units, requires the single-aspect view itself to be of demonstrably higher quality, and refuses where windows are only obscure-glazed and therefore provide no genuine outlook or natural light
· the full required-vs-proposed GIA, bedroom size and private amenity space figures against the specific London Plan national space standard for that dwelling type
· whether a design merely echoes existing local features or exaggerates them into an incongruous, dominating result relative to the street
· whether a single-aspect unit's non-obscured windows genuinely provide outlook and natural light, rather than being obscure-glazed and functionally blind
“the proposed design takes these ques and exaggerates them to appear overly dominating when viewed in conjunction with the rest of the properties on Sinclair Road”
240341
“The flat has severely limited single-aspect outlook given its only non-obscured windows face the road.”
251164
Measured from 51 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 51 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 51 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.