Catherine Holness.
Last recorded decision Aug 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 78% across 405 decided planning applications, spanning 28 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 Ealing reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Holness's refusal reasoning stands out for weighing design against a NAMED prior approved/lawful scheme on the same property that was never built, treating the abandoned scheme's design language (roof form, materials) as the relevant benchmark rather than the surrounding street generally. She separates "Planning Considerations" (design/character) from "Residential Amenity" as two consistently distinct sub-headings across her householder reports, and is willing to describe a design as simply inferior to what could have been achieved ("would not be in keeping with the profile") without hedging.
· benchmarks a proposal's roof form/design against a specific named prior approved-but-unbuilt scheme on the SAME property, not just the surrounding street
· keeps "Planning Considerations" (design/character) and "Residential Amenity" as two consistently separate sub-headings rather than folding neighbour impact into the design section
· directly states where a proposed roof profile or design element would clash with the existing dwelling's own established form, without softening the criticism
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific prior approved (even if unbuilt/expired) scheme on the same property, used as the design comparator rather than generic street character
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the proposed roof pitch/profile visually matches or clashes with the existing dwelling's own roofline, assessed on its own terms
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the proposed depth is only marginally beyond what permitted development would already allow, as a mitigating factor
“Previously, there has been an approved lawful development certificate for a rear dormer extension, reference PP/2012/2043, however this was not built”
200478HH
“the pitched roof prof ile of the proposed extension would not be in keeping with the prof ile of the main roof of the existing dwellinghouse. The angle at which the roof of the extension is shown would interrupt the line of the main roof”
200686HH
Measured from 134 published Ealing 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 134 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 28 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–24.[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 Ealing planning register and published decision notices, 2020–24. · 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 Ealing 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 134 published Ealing 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.