Chenhao Liu.
Active — last recorded decision Mar 2026
A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 77% across 464 decided planning applications, spanning 26 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×.
Liu's narrative reports frequently cross-reference the SPECIFIC prior refusal a re-submitted scheme addresses, naming what the previous case officer's concerns were and stating explicitly how the revised scheme responds. He also tracks split-garden ownership arrangements (which household owns which portion of a shared rear garden) as a discrete factual question before assessing amenity impact, and cites named conservation area management plans (Hanger Hill Garden Estate, Brentham Garden Estate) for their specific numbered paragraphs on rear-extension depth limits.
· names the specific prior refused scheme and the previous case officer's stated concern before explaining how the current revision addresses it
· investigates split rear-garden ownership between separate households as a discrete factual question ahead of the amenity assessment
· cites named conservation area management plan paragraph numbers with their maximum-depth or subordination requirements verbatim
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: what the previous case officer's stated objection was on a prior refused/withdrawn scheme, and whether the current revision specifically addresses that objection
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: photographic evidence of who currently controls which portion of a divided rear garden before assessing amenity space provision
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific maximum-depth figure stated in a named conservation area management plan document, applied literally rather than as a general guideline
“It is noted that in the previous refusal report the case officer had concerns regarding the proximity of the extension to the boundary; no set back from the existing outrigger; and the roof extending off the side of the existing roof encroached the original roof shape”
223981HH
“It is noted that split garden is a common feature in the area where the rear half of the garden is for the use of upper floor households. The applicant has sent photographs showing that no. 94 now owns the whole back garden of the application site”
223893FUL
Measured from 158 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 158 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 26 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 Ealing 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 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 158 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.