Cheryl Yeung.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 71% across 154 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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 Ealing reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Yeung's backland-development reports explicitly name the NPPF windfall-sites paragraph (72) and the Housing Design Guidance's subordination requirement together before assessing a new dwelling in a rear garden, treating backland status as a distinct policy category rather than folding it into general design assessment. Her sustainability sections itemise each named measure (SIPS construction, gas-free/electric-only, sedum roof, SAP assessment) as a discrete bulleted commitment rather than a general "sustainable design" statement.
· explicitly names backland development as its own policy category, citing NPPF paragraph 72 on windfall sites alongside the Housing Design Guidance's subordination requirement before assessing a new rear-garden dwelling
· itemises each named sustainability commitment (construction method, energy source, roof type, assessment stage) as a discrete bullet rather than a single general sustainability paragraph
· for heritage/conservation refusals, quotes the specific management-plan paragraph number alongside a factual site-visit finding (e.g. original glazing condition observed) before reaching a conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific NPPF windfall-sites paragraph and Housing Design Guidance subordination requirement cited together for any new backland/rear-garden dwelling
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each individual named sustainability measure (construction method, energy source, biodiversity feature) itemised as its own commitment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a dated site-visit finding on the physical condition of original historic fabric (e.g. glazing) before assessing a listed-building alteration
“The proposed development is considered as a backland development. In general, backland development, if not properly designed, would be detrimental to the character of the area and significantly reduce the area of the existing rear garden of the host building. Ealing's Housing Design Guidance states that backland development should be subordinate in scale to buildings that front the street”
252110FUL
“The site visit was carried out on 03.09.2025, and noted that nearly all the windows in the flat are original and most have original glass with imperfections and bubbles, which are generally well maintained and in good condition”
252863LBC
Measured from 74 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.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 74 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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 Ealing planning register and published decision notices, 2021–26. · 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 Ealing 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 74 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.