Morgan Cheung.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Westminster with an approval rate of 93% across 356 decided planning applications, spanning 6 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's caseload spans Covent Garden retail Use Class E lawful-use certificates and Pimlico/Millbank townhouse extension work under the newer numbered City Plan. On CLEUD/lawful-use cases she applies a 'balance of probability' evidentiary standard explicitly, weighing the applicant's business-rates and planning-history evidence against whatever the Council can independently corroborate, and issues the certificate once satisfied on balance rather than requiring certainty. On residential basement extensions she is thorough on flood risk, checking the specific flood zone, the standard of tidal defence protection, and whether the proposed use (kitchen versus sleeping accommodation) and retained access to a higher floor materially change the risk profile.
· on CLEUD/lawful-use certificates, states the evidentiary standard explicitly ('on the balance of probability') and weighs applicant evidence against the Council's own independent corroboration (business rates, prior planning history)
· checks a basement/lower-ground extension's specific flood zone, the standard of tidal/surface-water defence, and whether the proposed use and retained escape route materially change the flood risk profile
· assesses whether an extension's roof lantern/rooflight is genuinely unusable for looking-out before ruling out an overlooking concern, rather than assuming any glazing creates a privacy issue
· distinguishes a 'townscape merit' unlisted building's contribution to a conservation area from its formal heritage status when scoping the design test
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: independent corroboration (business rates, prior planning history) for an applicant's claimed use, weighed on the balance of probability
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific flood zone and defence standard for a basement extension, and whether the proposed use materially changes the flood risk
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a rooflight/lantern is genuinely usable for looking out before treating it as an overlooking concern
“The applicant's evidence demonstrates that, on the balance of probability, since the 1995 permissions were implemented the site has been used for retail purpose - which is being in line with what were approved.”
22/01035/CLEUD
“Given that the roof lantern is too high for anyone to look out of, it would not result in any amenity concern in terms of overlooking.”
22/01159/FULL
“The extension would not be used for sleeping accommodation and access to a higher floor in the event of a flood would be retained. In these circumstances, the proposals would not result in a materially different flood risk as compared to the current situation.”
22/01159/FULL
Measured from 275 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 275 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
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 Westminster 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 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 275 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.