Development Intent
AtlasEalingOfficersAndrew Pommells
Case officer · Ealing Planning

Andrew Pommells.

Last recorded decision Jul 2022 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 85% across 321 decided planning applications, spanning 27 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer321 decisions85% approvalSave
Ealing · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
321
Applications
2020–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%87%202088%202182%2022
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate85% · 16th of 44
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports139 officer reports parsed
3%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
1%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
60%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Ealing's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Ealing reports. Attention, not stance.

Materials & detailing
1.11× borough avg
Character & heritage
0.92× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
0.81× borough avg
Bulk & massing
0.8× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.77× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Pommells' narrative sections show a distinctive volumetric-density habit for major/change-of-use applications: he calculates units-per-hectare and habitable-rooms-per-hectare against the London Plan density matrix ranges explicitly, flagging where a scheme exceeds the suggested range even when he goes on to find it acceptable overall. On smaller schemes affected by loss of permitted development rights (e.g. flats), he states explicitly what area WOULD have been accepted under permitted development as the benchmark against which the actual, larger proposal is then measured.

Observable habits

· calculates units-per-hectare and habitable-rooms-per-hectare against the London Plan density matrix suggested range and states explicitly whether the scheme exceeds it, even where the overall recommendation is favourable

· for sites without permitted development rights (e.g. flats), states the specific area/dimension that WOULD have been acceptable under permitted development as the benchmark for judging the actual proposal

· treats a block's uniform, unaltered architectural consistency as the primary character benchmark, flagging even a modest addition as a harmful precedent where no other building in the row has one

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an explicit units-per-hectare and habitable-rooms-per-hectare calculation set against the London Plan's suggested density range for the site's PTAL/location type

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific dimension/area that would have been permitted development on a comparable dwellinghouse, used as an explicit benchmark even where the site itself has no PD rights

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether any OTHER unit in a uniform block or terrace already has the same feature, treating a genuinely first-of-its-kind addition as setting a harmful precedent

Assigned Andrew Pommells on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

Units per hectare: 1/ 0.0140 ha (site area) x 2 (number of units) = 142.9 units per hectare (exceeds the suggested requirement being 50-75 u/ha) Habitable rooms per hectare: 1/ 0.0140 ha (site area) x 5 (habitable rooms) = 357.1 habitable rooms per hectare (exceeds the suggested requirement being 150-200 hr/ha)

201307FUL

As the application site contains flats, permitted development rights are removed but usually we would accept a 3 m2 porch under permitted development. Unfortunately, the development of the proposed front porch has a larger area of 3.375 m2, primarily due to the depth

202989FUL

Measured from 139 published Ealing 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 139 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

GG1
38 times cited
D1
38 times cited
D3
38 times cited
D4
38 times cited
D5
33 times cited
D14
11 times cited
SPD4
8 times cited
D6
8 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
211594FUL
Full Application
Approved
2022-09-16
221667HH
Householder
Refused
2022-09-14
211594FUL
Full Application
Approved
2022-09-16
221667HH
Householder
Refused
2022-09-14
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 321 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Resi
2. FALUCK RAMAN PATEL
3. MoreSpace
4. AVIM Consultancy Ltd
At a glance
OfficerAndrew Pommells
BoroughEaling
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications321 (2020–22)
Approval rate85%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Ealing planning register and published decision notices, 2020–22. · methodology
  2. [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. [3]Condition load — mean effective conditions attached to Ealing decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
  4. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 139 published Ealing 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.