Development Intent
AtlasEalingOfficersJenny Knox
Planning Atlas›Ealing›Jenny Knox
Case officer · Ealing Planning

Jenny Knox.

Last recorded decision May 2024 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 81% across 302 decided planning applications, spanning 28 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer302 decisions81% 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 →
302
Applications
2020–24
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%100%202073%202190%202295%202377%2024
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate81% · 22nd 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 reports86 officer reports parsed
11%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
13%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
14%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
46%
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.

Flooding & drainage
1.48× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
1.25× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.22× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.14× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.06× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Knox's Certificate-of-Existing-Use refusals name the SPECIFIC gap in an applicant's evidence set (which use category is unaddressed, which timeframe is unaccounted for) rather than a general insufficiency finding, and she treats residents' own comments as a distinct, contrary evidence source that can outweigh an applicant's affidavits rather than automatically deferring to the applicant's own declarations. Her HMO reports cite the specific supporting-text paragraph number (e.g. London Plan Policy H9's paragraph 4.9.4) rather than just the headline policy, particularly where no Ealing-specific policy exists for the use in question.

Observable habits

· names the SPECIFIC gap in an evidence set (an unaddressed use category, an unaccounted-for timeframe) rather than a general insufficiency finding

· treats residents' own comments as a distinct, independent evidence source that can directly contradict and outweigh an applicant's own affidavits, not merely a consultation response to note

· cites the specific supporting-text paragraph number of a policy (not just its headline number) when no Ealing-specific policy exists for the use in question and the paragraph's exact wording is doing the analytical work

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the SPECIFIC use category or timeframe left unaddressed by an applicant's evidence, not a general insufficiency conclusion

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: residents' own comments as a distinct evidence source, checked for direct contradiction against the applicant's declarations

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific supporting-text paragraph of a cited policy, where that paragraph's wording (not just the policy title) is doing the analytical work

Assigned Jenny Knox 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

“It is considered that the submitted evidence is inadequate as to unambiguously prove the site was used as B8 Storage for a period of 10 years and left significant gaps in the potential timeframes for the use to have occurred”

204200CPE

“policy H9 Ensuring the best Use of Housing Stock (2021) states, Boroughs should take account of the role of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) in meeting local and strategic housing needs. The supporting text goes further in commenting 'HMOs are an important part of London's housing offer, reducing pressure on other elements of the housing stock. Their quality can, however, give rise to concern.' (paragraph 4.9.4)”

205184FUL

Measured from 86 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 86 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4
47 times cited
D1
42 times cited
D6
34 times cited
D3
23 times cited
T5
18 times cited
H1
17 times cited
T6.1
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
26
92%
21
79%
19
78%
16
88%
16
94%
15
67%
15
93%
14
75%
12
67%
12
80%
12
60%
11
80%
11
70%
10
88%
10
33%
10
90%
10
78%
10
86%
9
88%
8
86%
7
83%
7
100%
6
100%
5
100%
4
100%
3
100%
2
50%
1
100%
26
92%
21
79%
19
78%
Show all 28 rows
16
88%
16
94%
15
67%
15
93%
14
75%
12
67%
12
80%
12
60%
11
80%
11
70%
10
88%
10
33%
10
90%
10
78%
10
86%
9
88%
8
86%
7
83%
7
100%
6
100%
5
100%
4
100%
3
100%
2
50%
1
100%

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
241713HH
Householder
Approved
2024-06-25
241704HH
Householder
Approved
2024-06-25
241713HH
Householder
Approved
2024-06-25
241704HH
Householder
Approved
2024-06-25
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 302 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. PLANS 4 U LTD.
2. chalkline
3. Resi
4. Ben Elvin Planning Consultancy
At a glance
OfficerJenny Knox
BoroughEaling
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications302 (2020–24)
Approval rate81%
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, 2020–24. · 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 86 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.