Joel Holland Turner.
Recently active — last recorded decision May 2025
A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 76% across 342 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×.
Holland Turner's Certificate-of-Existing-Use reports build a chronological tenancy-agreement timeline naming EACH tenant, landlord and date range in sequence, and he explicitly discounts irrelevant corroborating evidence (e.g. a polling card with a mismatched name) rather than silently ignoring it. His narrative reports frequently reference a site's history of REFUSED applications and dismissed appeals by their specific reference numbers as the backdrop against which the current, revised scheme is judged.
· builds an explicit chronological tenant-by-tenant, date-range-by-date-range timeline in Certificate of Lawful Existing Use reports rather than summarising continuity in general terms
· explicitly states why a piece of submitted evidence is discounted (e.g. a name mismatch) rather than silently omitting it from the assessment
· frames a revised scheme's acceptability against the SPECIFIC prior refused application and/or dismissed appeal reference on the same site, naming the appeal decision number where relevant
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a complete, gap-free chronological sequence of named tenants and exact date ranges before accepting a claimed continuous-use period
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an explicit reason why any submitted piece of evidence does or does not corroborate the claimed use, rather than a blanket acceptance or rejection
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific prior refusal reference and/or appeal decision number for the same site, used to frame what has changed in the current scheme
“This piece of evidence is irrelevant as the name on the polling card does not correspond with names on tenancy agreements and the address does not specifically refer to the”
200038CPE
“This application follows on from two previously refused schemes, including an application for a new two-storey attached dwelling (160245FUL) with this refusal being appealed and dismissed”
201000HH
Measured from 102 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 102 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 28 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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, 2020–25. · 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 102 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.