James Maloney.
Last recorded decision Jun 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 77% across 584 decided planning applications, spanning 29 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×.
Maloney's design assessments lean heavily on a specific, comparable-precedent style of reasoning: he identifies the exact neighbouring properties (by number) that already carry a similar extension and measures the proposal's depth/height/setback against them directly, rather than relying on abstract policy language alone. He is also notably willing to invoke an unimplemented prior approval or planning permission on the SAME site as a "fall-back position" that lowers the bar for the current scheme.
· names specific neighbouring addresses with their existing extension dimensions as the direct comparator for the proposal under assessment
· treats an unimplemented but extant permission on the same site (including prior approvals) as a fall-back position that is a material consideration in favour of a similar new scheme
· runs through neighbour-by-neighbour impact assessments addressing each side (east/west or north/south) as its own labelled block
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a named, dimensioned comparator extension at a specific neighbouring address, not just a general claim that similar development exists nearby
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an extant but unimplemented permission on the same site could be built without further consent, which is then used to benchmark the acceptability of the current proposal
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: separation distance and screening (e.g. an existing garage) between the extension and each individual neighbour in turn
“Given there is no increase in depth proposed for the existing extension on the boundary with this neighbour, only an increase in height from a flat roof of 2.35m to a mono-pitched roof with an eave's height of 2.35m and a ridge height of 3.1m”
200515HH
“As referenced above, the 6m singe storey rear extension, the hip to gable roof alteration and the rear roof extension were previously approved under planning ref. 200572PALHE and 200554CPL. Given that these elements could be constructed without any further consent, the proposed single storey rear extension, hip to gable roof alteration and dormer extension would have an acceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area”
201687FUL
Measured from 185 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 185 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 29 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–24.[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, 2020–24. · 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 185 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.