Georgina Heale.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 80% across 56 decided planning applications, spanning 20 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×.
Heale is unusually explicit about weighing a design element AGAINST guidance while still finding it acceptable case-by-case ("though this is usually not permitted, however... in this instance, the height would be considered acceptable"), rather than presenting conclusions as automatic guidance-compliance. Her conservation-area reports for outbuildings assess siting relative to BOTH boundary lines and consistently state the resulting proportion of undeveloped rear garden remaining, treating garden-openness preservation as a discrete, quantified consideration.
· explicitly states where a specific design feature would "usually not [be] permitted" under standard guidance, then gives the case-specific reasoning for why an exception is justified here
· quantifies the proportion of rear garden that would remain UNDEVELOPED after an outbuilding/extension, treating garden-openness as its own discrete, numbered consideration rather than folding it into general character assessment
· assesses outbuilding siting relative to BOTH side boundaries individually with distance figures, not a single combined boundary-proximity judgement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an explicit statement of why a feature that would "usually not be permitted" is nonetheless acceptable in THIS specific case, rather than silently applying an exception
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the numeric proportion of rear garden remaining undeveloped after the proposed outbuilding/extension is built
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: individual distance figures to BOTH side boundaries for a new outbuilding, not a single generalised boundary-proximity statement
“Though this is usually not permitted, however, the height of the single storey rear extensions at No, 68 ad 72 appears to be sited just below the cill. Therefore, in this instance, the height would be considered acceptable”
254502HH
“The proposed outbuilding would measure the full width of the garden, allowing little space between the outbuilding and both boundary lines, occupying the majority of the rear portion of the rear garden. The rear gardens along this portion of Fielding Road are green, open and undeveloped and are considered a significant characteristic of the garden suburb setting”
253991HH
Measured from 67 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 67 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 20 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[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, 2023–26. · 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 67 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.