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
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 | 6 |
| Missing information or evidence | 3 |
| Principle of development | 2 |
| Neighbour amenity | 2 |
How this council decides
Measured against the published determination target on 1,333 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)
from valid to decision
This authority is mixed: a substantial share of decisions land after the statutory target, so treat the target as indicative.
Which day decisions land
| Mon | 20.7% | |
| Tue | 18.5% | |
| Wed | 18.9% | |
| Thu | 22.1% | |
| Fri | 19.8% |
An even working week is 20% a day. Amber marks a day carrying 26% or more.
By application type
| Type | Decisions | After target | On deadline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Householder planning permission | 202 | 47% | 30% |
| Lawful development: Proposed use | 194 | 14% | 20% |
| Full planning permission | 183 | 69% | 20% |
| Approval of details reserved by a condition (d | 168 | 39% | 13% |
| Outline | 99 | 14% | 47% |
| Full | 97 | 34% | 52% |
| All Other | 87 | 69% | 8% |
| Conditions | 70 | 20% | 21% |
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 is currently available for London authorities only.
Policies most often cited in refusals
Case officers in our data
| Officer | Applications | Refused |
|---|---|---|
| Hitarthi Patel | 5 | 4 |
| Eric Pang | 5 | 5 |
| Georgina Heale | 5 | 2 |
| Shirley Ho | 4 | 4 |
| Cheryl Yeung | 2 | 1 |
| Thomas Crump | 2 | 0 |
| Alex Fuller | 2 | 0 |
| John Robertson | 1 | 1 |
Counts come from the applications we have scraped, which is a fraction of each officer's caseload. Treat as a sample of who is active, not as a performance measure of an individual.
Agents most active here
| Agent / firm | Applications |
|---|---|
| Stantec UK Ltd | 17 |
| Tom Boswell Tree Services Ltd | 15 |
| MoreSpace | 11 |
| Red and White | 11 |
| Allison Tree Services | 9 |
| Savills | 8 |
| The Berkeley Tree Company Limited | 8 |
| RPR Planning Ltd | 8 |
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.