Development Intent
AtlasEalingOfficersFernanda Calore
Planning Atlas›Ealing›Fernanda Calore
Case officer · Ealing Planning

Fernanda Calore.

Recently active — last recorded decision Apr 2025

A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 82% across 297 decided planning applications, spanning 25 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer297 decisions82% 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 →
297
Applications
2020–25
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%71%202283%202385%202488%2025
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate82% · 20th 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 reports83 officer reports parsed
40%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
4%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
6%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
69%
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.

Energy & sustainability
1.64× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.62× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.34× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.08× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.05× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Calore's window/door-replacement reports work through EVERY individual opening being altered, elevation by elevation, stating the existing and proposed material/glazing for each — a granular, itemised style distinct from officers who assess fenestration changes as one collective judgement. Her numbered "1./2." topic headings (Design/Impact on neighbours) are consistently reused but sparse, with most of the substantive reasoning happening inside the numbered body text rather than under further sub-headings.

Observable habits

· itemises every individual window/door opening being altered, elevation by elevation, with the existing and proposed material/glazing type stated for each rather than assessing fenestration change collectively

· for Green Belt householder cases, calculates the percentage increase in footprint/floorspace/volume against the ORIGINAL dwelling using a rule-of-thumb acceptable range (20-30%) rather than a fixed borough figure

· uses a bare numbered "1./2." topic list (design, neighbours) with most substantive analysis inside the numbered body rather than further named sub-headings

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the existing and proposed material/glazing type for EVERY individual window or door opening being altered, not a collective fenestration judgement

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a percentage-increase calculation for Green Belt extensions measured against the footprint, floorspace AND volume of the original dwelling separately

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific repair methodology (mortar mix, brick type, reinforcement method) for each elevation of a listed building undergoing brickwork repair

Assigned Fernanda Calore 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

“Front elevation: six single glazed timber sliding sash windows to be replaced by double glazed purpose made uPVC sliding sash windows. Two windows in front elevation would be retained”

223829FUL

“As a rule-of-thumb, an increase of approximately 20% - 30% over the footprint, floorspace and volume of an original dwellinghouse would generally be acceptable, therefore the increase in area and floor space is not objectionable in its own right”

223945HH

Measured from 83 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 83 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4
54 times cited
D3
53 times cited
D5
45 times cited
GG1
44 times cited
D6
41 times cited
D14
20 times cited
T5
17 times cited
T6
15 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
25
84%
23
100%
22
90%
20
84%
19
88%
16
92%
16
93%
14
82%
14
93%
12
82%
12
55%
12
58%
12
75%
12
86%
11
73%
10
57%
9
88%
8
88%
8
50%
7
100%
5
60%
4
100%
3
67%
2
50%
1
100%
25
84%
23
100%
22
90%
Show all 25 rows
20
84%
19
88%
16
92%
16
93%
14
82%
14
93%
12
82%
12
55%
12
58%
12
75%
12
86%
11
73%
10
57%
9
88%
8
88%
8
50%
7
100%
5
60%
4
100%
3
67%
2
50%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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
243185FULR3
Full Application - Reg 3
Approved
2025-08-07
250927HH
Householder
Approved
2025-06-19
243185FULR3
Full Application - Reg 3
Approved
2025-08-07
250927HH
Householder
Approved
2025-06-19
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 297 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Red and White
2. chalkline
3. Freedom Homes Architects
4. FALUCK RAMAN PATEL
At a glance
OfficerFernanda Calore
BoroughEaling
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications297 (2020–25)
Approval rate82%
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, 2020–25. · 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 83 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.