Development Intent
AtlasEalingOfficersEllie Roe
Case officer · Ealing Planning

Ellie Roe.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 75% across 157 decided planning applications, spanning 24 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer157 decisions75% approvalSave
Ealing · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
157
Applications
2021–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%76%202573%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate75% · 40th of 44
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports69 officer reports parsed
15%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
4%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
60%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Ealing's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Ealing reports. Attention, not stance.

Flooding & drainage
3.44× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.89× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
1.87× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.62× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.06× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Roe's HMO reports state the full occupancy arithmetic explicitly — the maximum theoretical occupancy the ROOM SIZES could support versus the LOWER number actually proposed — and note that a planning condition plus the HMO licensing regime together enforce the lower cap, treating licensing as a second, independent control layer rather than relying on planning conditions alone. She is precise about bedroom-by-bedroom compliance tables (size, occupancy level, requirement) for HMO and flat-conversion schemes.

Observable habits

· states the maximum theoretical occupancy the room sizes could technically support, explicitly distinct from the lower number actually proposed, and notes both a planning condition AND the separate HMO licensing regime as independent controls capping it

· produces a room-by-room compliance table (size, level of occupancy, space-standard requirement) for HMO and flat-conversion schemes rather than a single aggregate space-standards statement

· flags where a proposal is technically retrospective (regularising an unlawfully-converted use already subject to an enforcement notice) as a distinct factual backdrop before assessing the merits

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the maximum occupancy the room sizes could technically support, stated separately from the lower number actually proposed and secured by condition

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a room-by-room table of proposed size, occupancy level and the applicable space-standard requirement for every bedroom in an HMO or flat conversion

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a scheme is retrospective and already the subject of an enforcement notice, stated explicitly as the factual backdrop

Assigned Ellie Roe on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

the potential occupancy of the development is 8 persons as all rooms could fit a double bed. However, the description of development sets out that the proposals are for a small HMO, which would accommodate up to 4 persons. An informative has been attached that the proposed HMO is for only 4 occupants and the HMO licence would serve to reinforce this restriction by setting a maximum occupancy level

250266FUL

The property has been unlawfully converted to three self-contained flats that do not have acceptable living conditions and do not comply with Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021, the Nationally Described Space Standards, and is subject to an Enforcement Notice (ref. COM/2010/00389-3)

251413FUL

Measured from 69 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 69 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4
37 times cited
D3
35 times cited
D6
22 times cited
D5
17 times cited
D14
16 times cited
T5
16 times cited
T6
15 times cited
H1
13 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
261544HH
Householder
Approved
2026-06-05
261420FUL
Full Application
Approved
2026-06-04
261544HH
Householder
Approved
2026-06-05
261420FUL
Full Application
Approved
2026-06-04
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 157 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. BPG Architects + Surveyors
2. Orbis Town Planning Ltd
3. MZA Planning
4. Freedom Homes Architects
At a glance
OfficerEllie Roe
BoroughEaling
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications157 (2021–26)
Approval rate75%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Ealing planning register and published decision notices, 2021–26. · methodology
  2. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 69 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.