Development Intent
AtlasEalingOfficersCathy Munonyedi
Planning Atlas›Ealing›Cathy Munonyedi
Case officer · Ealing Planning

Cathy Munonyedi.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 88% across 609 decided planning applications, spanning 29 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer609 decisions88% 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 →
609
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%82%202092%202186%202283%202391%202489%202595%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate88% · 12th 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 reports204 officer reports parsed
13%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
11%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
6%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
55%
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.

Trees & landscape
1.43× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.33× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.17× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.13× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.9× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Munonyedi's reports frequently work through a numbered or bulleted list of "main planning considerations" up front, then address each in its own labelled sub-section, and she is comfortable pulling in adjacent regeneration-plan material (OPDC Plan, Draft New London Plan) alongside the core Ealing DPD/Core Strategy citations when a site sits at a plan boundary. She also cites specific quantified conservation-area management-plan guidance (e.g. named house-type descriptions) rather than generic conservation-area language when the site sits in a character area with a published appraisal.

Observable habits

· opens amenity/design assessments with a numbered list of the main planning considerations before addressing each individually

· quotes conservation area management plans and character appraisals verbatim, including named housing-type sub-classifications where the appraisal document itself uses them

· measures neighbouring impact in concrete separation distances (e.g. metres from a shared boundary or window) rather than purely qualitative description

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a documented character appraisal or management plan passage that names the specific historic house-type or feature at issue, not just generic conservation area wording

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: precise separation distances (in metres) between the proposed extension and neighbouring boundaries/windows before drawing an amenity conclusion

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the site sits within an emerging plan boundary (e.g. OPDC) that brings in an additional policy layer beyond the standard Ealing DPD/Core Strategy set

Assigned Cathy Munonyedi 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

“Whilst there are no specific policies relating to Guest Houses in the Development Management, Development Plan Document (2013), policy E10 - Visitor Infrastructure of the London Plan (2016) and policy 4.5 London's Visitor Infrastructure refers to short-stay accommodation”

200232FUL

“Modern Movement: This is a flat roof modern" style, with metal windows. Houses are either all rendered or exposed brickwork. Horizontal emphasis is given by the window pattern, the continuous concrete band above the ground floor windows, and the "cornice" lines formed by the flat roofs projecting over the front "bay" and the roof top sunroom”

200337HH

Measured from 204 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 204 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4
99 times cited
D1
92 times cited
D3
88 times cited
D6
78 times cited
HC1
29 times cited
G5
24 times cited
D2
22 times cited
D5
20 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
70
91%
60
87%
55
89%
37
88%
34
88%
33
91%
32
93%
24
100%
24
100%
23
86%
23
67%
20
83%
19
78%
17
65%
16
87%
15
77%
15
92%
13
100%
11
89%
10
100%
10
90%
9
100%
8
88%
7
71%
6
75%
6
83%
6
80%
5
100%
1
100%
70
91%
60
87%
55
89%
Show all 29 rows
37
88%
34
88%
33
91%
32
93%
24
100%
24
100%
23
86%
23
67%
20
83%
19
78%
17
65%
16
87%
15
77%
15
92%
13
100%
11
89%
10
100%
10
90%
9
100%
8
88%
7
71%
6
75%
6
83%
6
80%
5
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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
260483FUL
Full Application
Other
2026-05-29
261066FUL
Full Application
Approved
2026-05-06
260483FUL
Full Application
Other
2026-05-29
261066FUL
Full Application
Approved
2026-05-06
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 609 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. MoreSpace
2. The Moore Project
3. MZA Planning
4. Andreas Georgiou t/a GIAD
At a glance
OfficerCathy Munonyedi
BoroughEaling
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications609 (2020–26)
Approval rate88%
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, 2020–26. · 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 204 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.