Development Intent
AtlasEalingOfficersJohn Robertson
Planning Atlas›Ealing›John Robertson
Case officer · Ealing Planning

John Robertson.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 76% across 323 decided planning applications, spanning 29 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer323 decisions76% 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 →
323
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%65%202073%202167%202289%202386%202473%202580%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate76% · 36th 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 reports89 officer reports parsed
63%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
33%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
48%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
79%
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
3.34× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
2.61× borough avg
Trees & landscape
2.54× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
2.38× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.86× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Robertson's reports are the borough's most systematically hedged and consultee-driven: he flags where a submitted assessment (e.g. daylight/sunlight for a proposed housing scheme) is MISSING rather than filling the gap himself, and repeatedly notes where a proposal fails to comply with a specific London Plan servicing/refuse policy in explicit numeric terms (litres of capacity required vs provided) even while ultimately weighing it as non-fatal. He works through major schemes via a long, stable topic list (density, design, amenity, quality of accommodation, refuse, transport, CIL) addressed one by one, closer to a committee-report structure than the borough's typical delegated-decision style.

Observable habits

· explicitly flags where a required technical assessment (daylight/sunlight, drainage) is MISSING from the application rather than substituting his own judgement

· quantifies refuse/recycling capacity shortfalls in exact litres required vs provided, citing the specific London Plan/Ealing Waste Guidelines standard

· works through major applications via a long, stable numbered topic list (density, design, amenity, accommodation quality, refuse, transport, CIL) addressed sequentially, closer to a committee-report structure

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a required technical assessment (daylight/sunlight, drainage) was actually submitted, flagging its absence explicitly rather than assuming compliance

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an exact litre-capacity comparison between the Ealing Waste Guidelines/London Plan requirement and what the scheme actually provides

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a Tree Officer or other named consultee has recommended refusal on a specific technical ground (e.g. absent tree protection measures), treated as a standalone consideration

Assigned John Robertson 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 unclear whether the living rooms would obtain adequate daylight since no Daylight/Sunlight Assessment accompanies the application”

200920FUL

“Ealing Waste Guidelines specify a weekly waste storage requirement of 250l per bedroom for a 2/3 star hotel. For a 50 room hotel, this would indicate a need for 12,500 litres of waste/recycling capacity”

200919FUL

Measured from 89 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 89 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D3
55 times cited
D4
55 times cited
SI 1
54 times cited
D5
52 times cited
SI 13
51 times cited
T4
50 times cited
T6
50 times cited
T5
49 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
27
63%
25
78%
24
80%
24
91%
19
60%
18
76%
15
86%
14
86%
13
60%
12
78%
12
88%
12
82%
11
70%
11
90%
9
86%
9
67%
8
67%
8
86%
8
71%
7
60%
6
83%
6
100%
5
60%
5
100%
4
100%
4
50%
3
33%
3
67%
1
100%
27
63%
25
78%
24
80%
Show all 29 rows
24
91%
19
60%
18
76%
15
86%
14
86%
13
60%
12
78%
12
88%
12
82%
11
70%
11
90%
9
86%
9
67%
8
67%
8
86%
8
71%
7
60%
6
83%
6
100%
5
60%
5
100%
4
100%
4
50%
3
33%
3
67%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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
260847FUL
Full Application
Other
2026-06-03
252217FUL
Full Application
Approved
2026-05-29
260847FUL
Full Application
Other
2026-06-03
252217FUL
Full Application
Approved
2026-05-29
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 323 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Red and White
2. Savills
3. Bancil Partnership Ltd
4. Turley
At a glance
OfficerJohn Robertson
BoroughEaling
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications323 (2020–26)
Approval rate76%
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, 2020–26. · 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 89 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.