Ernie Cheung.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 83% across 266 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 Westminster reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Cheung has the highest refusal rate among the top officers reviewed and is exacting about EXACT compliance with a previously approved consent — refusing an S.73 variation where as-built dormer windows depart materially (shorter sashes, wrong cladding) from the consented drawings, comparing directly against the neighbouring building's treatment. On certificate-of-lawfulness applications he requires positive documentary evidence of a claimed use, refusing where the applicant supplies only undated drawings with no supporting statement, and instead relies on his own site-visit observations (paint markings, layout) to infer the most likely historic use.
· compares as-built works directly against the ORIGINALLY consented drawings, refusing an S.73 variation where the divergence (shorter window sashes, wrong cladding) is materially worse than what was approved
· requires positive documentary evidence (a cover letter, planning statement, dated records) for a claimed historic use on CLEUD applications, refusing where only undated drawings are submitted
· relies on personal site-visit observations (paint markings, physical layout) to independently infer a site's most likely historic use where the applicant's evidence is insufficient
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether as-built or varied works match the originally consented drawings exactly, not just approximately
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: positive documentary evidence (dated records, a planning statement) supporting a claimed historic use on CLEUD applications
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: physical evidence from a personal site visit (paint markings, layout) to independently corroborate or contradict an applicant's claimed use
“The three sash windows are much shorter than the consented scheme, resulting in an awkwardly proportioned window with a large section of sheer slate below”
21/01430/FULL
“the applicant claims that the basement has primarily been used for storage over the past 10 years, but no evidence has been presented to support this claim. No cover letter, planning statement, or any supporting documents were submitted alongside the application”
21/06143/CLOPUD
Measured from 215 published Westminster 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 215 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
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.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Westminster planning register and published decision notices, 2021–26. · 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 Westminster 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 215 published Westminster 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.