Development Intent
AtlasEalingOfficersRiley Mcrae
Case officer · Ealing Planning

Riley McRae.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 94% across 69 decided planning applications, spanning 20 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer69 decisions94% 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 →
69
Applications
2023–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average

Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.

What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate94% · 2nd 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 reports44 officer reports parsed
38%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
70%
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.

Daylight & sunlight
1.64× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.52× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.42× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.37× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.25× borough avg

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

Assigned Riley McRae 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

Given these factors, it is considered that the proposed Street Hub would not result in unacceptable impacts upon the amenities of either the residential properties above the parade or the commercial occupiers at ground level.

260017FUL · recommendation: Grant with conditions

As such no unacceptable impacts on residential amenity should arise in terms of overlooking loss of light or overbearing effects.

260278FUL · recommendation: Refuse.

As such, it would not result in any significant or unacceptable transport impacts.

260364FUL · recommendation: Grant Planning Permission, subject to conditions.

Measured from 44 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 44 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D3
20 times cited
D4
20 times cited
D6
11 times cited
D8
6 times cited
D5
5 times cited
T4
5 times cited
T6
4 times cited
GG2
3 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[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
261054FUL
Full Application
Approved
2026-06-10
261161HH
Householder
Approved
2026-06-09
261054FUL
Full Application
Approved
2026-06-10
261161HH
Householder
Approved
2026-06-09
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 69 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Design Endeavours
2. Plans 4 U Ltd
3. Freedom Homes Architects
4. MoreSpace
At a glance
OfficerRiley McRae
BoroughEaling
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications69 (2023–26)
Approval rate94%
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, 2023–26. · 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 44 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.