Chris W.H. Tse.
Recently active — last recorded decision Oct 2025
A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 80% across 343 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×.
Tse's reasoning is distinctive for explicitly acknowledging where a proposal EXCEEDS the borough's own SPD4/Housing Design Guidance numeric limits (depth, height) and then arguing acceptability anyway on the basis of a documented local pattern of similarly-oversized extensions — a two-step "exceeds the guidance, but..." structure repeated across many reports rather than treating the guidance figure as a hard cap. He is unusually specific in identifying which planning route (permitted development vs prior approval vs full permission) a comparator extension was built under.
· uses a consistent two-step structure: state explicitly that the proposal exceeds SPD4/Housing Design Guidance's numeric depth or height limit, then argue acceptability on the basis of a documented local pattern of similarly-scaled extensions
· identifies precisely which consent route (prior approval, full permission, or unrecorded/assumed permitted development) each comparator extension was built under
· for care-home and specialist-accommodation uses, explicitly audits the applicant's needs evidence against a named consultee's (Adult Services) own assessment of existing borough capacity
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an explicit acknowledgement that the numeric SPD4/Housing Design Guidance limit is exceeded, paired with a documented local pattern of similarly-scaled extensions to justify acceptability anyway
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific consent route (prior approval reference, full permission reference, or assumed PD) under which each comparator extension was built
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a consultee's (e.g. Adult Services) own assessment of existing capacity when weighing the justification for a new specialist care use
“Despite the proposed extension would be marginally higher than the 3.0m maximum height under SPD 4 � Residential Extensions, it would feature a pitched roof design, a light well abutting the common boundary with No. 6 and a 1.8m setback from the common boundary”
225414FUL
“according to the representation from Ealing Council's Adult Services, there is currently an excess of learning disability residential homes within the borough whilst the applicant has not submitted any robust evidence of additional demand supporting the need for a further residential service”
230724FUL
Measured from 107 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 107 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–25.[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, 2022–25. · 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 107 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.