Henry Yeung.
Last recorded decision May 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 78% across 185 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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×.
Yeung's Certificate-of-Lawfulness refusals name the specific missing address correlation in submitted invoices ("does not include address for [property]") as the concrete reason evidence fails, rather than a general insufficiency finding, and he calculates the exact relevant evidence window (application date minus four years) before assessing what falls inside it. His HH reports pair a stated compliance breach (e.g. exceeding SPD4's maximum depth) with an explicit finding that the scale is nonetheless within "reasonable limits" by naming the specific comparator that sets that limit.
· in Certificate of Lawfulness refusals, states the PRECISE reason a submitted document fails to corroborate use (e.g. missing the property address on an invoice) rather than a general insufficiency finding
· calculates the exact relevant evidence window (application date minus the statutory four/ten-year period) explicitly before assessing which submitted documents fall inside it
· pairs an acknowledged numeric guidance breach with a named comparator extension that is used to justify why the breach is still within "reasonable limits"
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the PRECISE, document-specific reason a piece of evidence fails to corroborate use (e.g. no address correlation), not a general insufficiency conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an explicit calculation of the statutory relevant evidence period (application date minus 4 or 10 years) before assessing which documents count
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific named comparator extension whose dimensions justify why an acknowledged guidance breach is still within reasonable limits
“some of them does not include address and it could be the materials or furniture used for the main dwellinghouse not for the outbuilding”
220435CPE
“The depth would be contrary to SPD4 Residential Extensions and the more recent Ealing's Housing Design Guidance, which states rear extensions should not exceed 3m and 3.5m respectively. However, the depth would be similar to a number of neighbouring extensions within the local area, such as that at no 5 Eastfields Road, permission Ref: 165900HH”
224806HH
Measured from 82 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 82 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–24.[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, 2021–24. · 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 82 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.