Christopher Neelands.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 76% across 439 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×.
Neelands' reports are built around a stable roman-numeral "key considerations" list (Design and local character / Impact on neighbour amenity / Impact on transport) repeated near-verbatim across most reports, and he is precise about which specific London Plan policy pairing (D3/D4) governs design in every case, citing them as a fixed pair rather than selecting individually. He also directly compares a resubmitted scheme against a previously APPROVED permission on the same site rather than only against refusals, stating explicitly where nothing has changed policy-wise since that approval.
· opens nearly every report with the same stable roman-numeral key-considerations list (design and local character / neighbour amenity / transport) as the report's skeleton
· cites London Plan policies D3 and D4 as a fixed pair for design assessment rather than selecting a single applicable policy
· when reassessing a resubmitted scheme, states explicitly that policy has not changed since a specific prior APPROVAL (not just a refusal) on the same site, using that approval as the benchmark
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the same roman-numeral key-considerations list applied as a template across design, amenity and transport in nearly every report
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific PRIOR APPROVAL (not merely a refusal) on the same site as the benchmark for a resubmitted or near-identical scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether NPPF policy or the local development plan has changed since that prior approval, as the deciding factor in whether further assessment is needed
“The key considerations of this proposal are: i. Design and local character ii. Impact on neighbour amenity iii. Impact on transport/ loss of parking”
222011HH
“Since the approval of planning permission ref. 217174HH, there has been no change in policy in regard to the NPPF, London Plan and Ealing's local development plan documents. For these reasons, further assess”
222725HH
Measured from 125 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 125 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 125 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.