Development Intent
AtlasEalingOfficersGrace To
Planning Atlas›Ealing›Grace To
Case officer · Ealing Planning

Grace To.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 91% across 95 decided planning applications, spanning 23 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer95 decisions91% 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 →
95
Applications
2025–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%92%202591%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate91% · 9th 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 reports55 officer reports parsed
29%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
51%
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.

Privacy & overlooking
2.48× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.98× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.14× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.12× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.05× borough avg

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

Assigned Grace To 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

“The proposal would not install new windows or introduce a new outlook for the properties, it would simply replace the existing windows and doors with double glazed versions. As such, there are no concerns”

254002FUL

“The proposal involves converting the existing undercroft car park into habitable space rather than creating a new side extension. This change of use does not alter the property's footprint on the side”

253935HH

Measured from 55 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 55 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4
23 times cited
D3
19 times cited
D6
8 times cited
D8
5 times cited
D5
3 times cited
HC1
3 times cited
D14
2 times cited
T5
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
8
100%
8
100%
7
75%
7
100%
7
100%
6
100%
6
67%
5
100%
5
100%
4
100%
4
100%
4
100%
4
50%
3
100%
3
50%
3
50%
3
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
–
1
–
8
100%
8
100%
7
75%
Show all 23 rows
7
100%
7
100%
6
100%
6
67%
5
100%
5
100%
4
100%
4
100%
4
100%
4
50%
3
100%
3
50%
3
50%
3
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
–
1
–

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[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
261265FUL
Full Application
Refused
2026-06-05
260715FUL
Full Application
Refused
2026-06-02
261265FUL
Full Application
Refused
2026-06-05
260715FUL
Full Application
Refused
2026-06-02
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 95 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Bluelime
2. MoreSpace
3. Archimedes Design
4. Freedom Homes Architects
At a glance
OfficerGrace To
BoroughEaling
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications95 (2025–26)
Approval rate91%
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, 2025–26. · 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 55 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.