LPA Profile
What we hold on a single planning authority: appeal behaviour, what they refuse on, which policies they cite, and how current their local plan is. For the national league table and 47-year statistical history, see Council Performance. New: which refusal reasons survive appeal here — measured from real Inspectorate decision letters.
Ealing London Borough Council
GSS E09000009 · Portal: idox (ok) · council register
Official statistics — is development moving through the system?
MHCLG quarterly planning returns (PS1/PS2), last 4 quarters 2025 Q3 to 2026 Q2, and the government's latest Housing Delivery Test. These are the authority's own statutory returns, not our scrape.
Peer ranks compare only London boroughs with more than 50 decisions in the window, the same floor as the national rank. A rank among peers is the fairer read: types of authority carry very different caseloads.
| Type | Decisions | Approved | In time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Major | 28 | 96.4% | 100.0% |
| Minor | 821 | 80.0% | 94.2% |
| Other | 1,106 | 85.4% | — |
| of which householder | 946 | 87.2% | 96.0% |
Delivery below 75%: the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development applies to housing applications here. A material point for any housing proposal.
| Dataset | Publisher | Covers this authority | Loaded | Official source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning application decisions (PS2) | MHCLG | 1979 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (189 quarters) | 25 Oct 2026 · 68,583 rows nationally | Live tables |
| Planning application flow (PS1) | MHCLG | 1979 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (189 quarters) | 25 Oct 2026 · 42,861 rows nationally | Live tables |
| Housing Delivery Test 2025 | MHCLG | 2022/23 to 2024/25 | 18 Aug 2026 | Measurement |
What this authority refuses on
Classified from the reasons in decision notices we hold for this council. Categories can overlap — one reason often engages more than one issue.
| Objection type | Reasons |
|---|---|
| Design, scale or layout | 10 |
| Missing information or evidence | 3 |
| Principle of development | 2 |
| Neighbour amenity | 2 |
| Highways and access | 1 |
How this council decides
Measured against the published determination target on 1,730 decisions. Average window from valid date to target: 53 days (the statutory period is 56 days for most applications, 91 for majors).
(4+ days before target)
(final 3 days)
(after the target)
valid date to decision
This authority is mixed: a substantial share of decisions land after the statutory target, so treat the target as indicative.
Which day applications are submitted, validated and decided
| Submitted (n=1,730) | Validated (n=1,730) | Decided (n=1,730) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mon | 21% | 20.3% | 20.2% | |||
| Tue | 21.2% | 21.8% | 18.3% | |||
| Wed | 18.4% | 18.6% | 19.4% | |||
| Thu | 17.8% | 17.5% | 22.8% | |||
| Fri | 19.4% | 19.5% | 19.4% | |||
| Sat | 1.8% | 1.8% | 0% | |||
| Sun | 0.5% | 0.6% | 0% | |||
An even working week is 20% a day. Amber marks a day carrying 26% or more. Submitted is the date the council received the application; validated is the date it was made valid and the clock started. All three columns use the same applications, so they can be read across.
By application type
| Type | Decisions | Before deadline | On deadline day | Late | Average days |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full | 238 | 24% | 33% | 43% | 80 |
| Outline | 210 | 52% | 32% | 15% | 51 |
| Householder planning permission | 202 | 24% | 30% | 47% | 80 |
| Lawful development: Proposed use | 194 | 65% | 20% | 14% | 50 |
| Full planning permission | 183 | 10% | 20% | 69% | 105 |
| Approval of details reserved by a condition (d | 168 | 48% | 13% | 39% | 73 |
| Conditions | 154 | 44% | 14% | 42% | 81 |
| All Other | 87 | 23% | 8% | 69% | 118 |
What "after the target" means. Published data cannot distinguish an agreed extension of time from a target that was simply missed — both appear the same way. This measures when the decision was issued relative to the statutory target, and nothing more. Deadline data comes from the council's own published determination target, captured where its portal exposes it (Idox councils and the London Datahub).
Policies most often cited in refusals
Case officers in our data
| Officer | Applications | Decided | Approved | Refused | Withdrawn | Approval rate | Average days | Late | Mostly handles | Seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Crump | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 24 | — | Works to a tree Conservation Area (8) | Jul 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Eric Pang | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0% | 46 | — | Prior Approval - Larger Home Extension (2) | Jul 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Georgina Heale | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 60% | 53 | — | Householder (2) | Jun 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Hitarthi Patel | 5 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 20% | 53 | — | Full Application (2) | Jun 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Shirley Ho | 4 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0% | 59 | — | Discharge Condition (1) | Jun 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Alex Fuller | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 56 | — | Householder (1) | Jun 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Cathy Munonyedi | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 50% | 43 | — | Householder (1) | Jul 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Cheryl Yeung | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 50% | 56 | — | Conditions (1) | Jun 2026 – Aug 2026 |
| Imogen Botterill-Downs | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 50% | 28 | — | Certificate of Lawfulness - Proposed (1) | Jul 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| Sophie Hennessy | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 50% | 71 | — | Discharge Condition Reg 3 (1) | May 2026 – Oct 2026 |
| David Hung | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 50 | — | Discharge Condition (1) | Jul 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| Ellie Roe | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 20 | — | OPDC Consultation by Other Boroughs (1) | Jul 2026 – Aug 2026 |
Counts come from the applications we have scraped, which is a fraction of each officer's caseload. Approval rate is approvals as a share of approvals plus refusals; withdrawn and other outcomes are excluded. Average days runs from the validated date to the decision. Late is the share decided after the published determination target, shown only where we hold a target for at least five of that officer's decisions. "Mostly handles" is the application type they appear on most often. Treat as a sample of who is active, not as a performance measure of an individual: a caseload of majors runs longer than one of householder applications. Click a name for the full officer profile.
Agents most active here
| Agent / firm | Applications | Decided | Approved | Refused | Withdrawn | Success rate | Average days | Mostly brings | Seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tom Boswell Tree Services Ltd | 24 | 20 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 32 | Trees (21) | Apr 2023 – Sep 2026 |
| Red and White | 21 | 11 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 100% | 55 | Full (10) | Mar 2023 – Sep 2026 |
| Stantec UK Ltd | 21 | 7 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 66 | Conditions (18) | Sep 2024 – Oct 2026 |
| Savills | 20 | 10 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 157 | Conditions (16) | Oct 2024 – Sep 2026 |
| Freedom Homes Architects | 14 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 95 | Conditions (6) | Nov 2024 – Sep 2026 |
| Excel Planning | 12 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 70% | 51 | Conditions (5) | Apr 2023 – Aug 2026 |
| Turley | 11 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 138 | Conditions (8) | Apr 2023 – Sep 2026 |
| MoreSpace | 11 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 100% | 56 | Full (9) | Jun 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| RPR Planning Ltd | 11 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 38 | Conditions (7) | Oct 2025 – Aug 2026 |
| DP9 Ltd | 9 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 41 | Conditions (5) | Jan 2026 – Sep 2026 |
| PLANS 4 U LTD | 9 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 37 | Full (6) | Nov 2024 – Jul 2026 |
| chalkline | 9 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 56 | Conditions (2) | Oct 2024 – Jul 2026 |
Success rate is approvals as a share of approvals plus refusals; withdrawn and other outcomes are excluded, so an agent who withdraws rather than takes a refusal will look stronger than the raw numbers suggest. Average days runs from the validated date to the decision. "Mostly brings" is the application type the firm appears on most often, which explains much of the difference: tree works and conditions discharge are approved far more often than new build. Counts are from the applications we have scraped, not the firm's full workload.
Development plan
Development Strategy 2026
Adopted 2012-04-03 · plan period 2011-01-01–2026-01-01
Plan documents
National statistics for this authority →
Councils with data on file
On the numbers. The refusal rate, officers and agents here are computed from the applications PlanningCore has collected for this authority — for most councils that is a recent sample rather than the full register, and the date range above tells you which. The appeal overturn rate comes from Planning Inspectorate decisions and covers a much longer period. Use the national statistics page for complete, official volumes.
About this tool: LPA Profile
Deep-dive authority analysis — approval rates by type, refusal reason clustering, appeal overturn rates, average decision times, and strictness rankings.
Use to understand how your LPA behaves. Every council has different tendencies — some are design-focused, some are policy-strict, some are more pragmatic.
MHCLG planning statistics, appeal decision analysis
Use these tools to understand how your Local Planning Authority behaves — what they approve, what they refuse, how often appeals succeed, and what strategy gives you the best chance. This is behavioural intelligence, not just policy research.
Guidance to help you prepare — not formal planning advice. Check the current policy text and your council's local plan before relying on it.