Euan Cheyne.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Islington with an approval rate of 87% across 463 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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 Islington reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Cheyne consistently anchors his design assessments in named comparator properties on the same street, citing their exact planning references and dimensions (e.g. matching an extension's depth to a specific approved neighbour). His amenity write-ups give precise metric figures for boundary distances, eaves heights and set-ins rather than qualitative description.
· names a specific neighbouring property and its own planning reference as the direct comparator for scale/design acceptability
· gives boundary-by-boundary metric distances (depth, eaves height, set-in) for each affected neighbour in turn
· notes when a 45-degree line is crossed in plan but not in elevation, and treats the elevation result as controlling
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an explicit comparator extension on the same street with its own planning reference and dimensions
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: metric distances to each affected boundary and neighbouring window, not general description
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the 45-degree test is passed in elevation even if crossed on plan
“This neighbouring property benefits from a single storey rear extension (ref. P102437) with a depth of 3.3 metres at lower ground floor level. The height of the proposed extension would match the height of the extension at No. 78 Northchurch Road”
P2022/3886/FUL
“The 45 degree line is not crossed in elevation to the nearest first floor window. Whilst the 45 degree line is crossed in elevation and plan to the ground floor window, these lines are already crossed by the existing two storey outrigger extension”
P2022/2623/FUL
Measured from 136 published Islington 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 136 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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 Islington planning register and published decision notices, 2022–26. · 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 Islington 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 136 published Islington 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.