Development Intent
AtlasEalingOfficersSam Benson
Planning Atlas›Ealing›Sam Benson
Case officer · Ealing Planning

Sam Benson.

Recently active — last recorded decision Sep 2025

A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 84% across 169 decided planning applications, spanning 23 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer169 decisions84% 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 →
169
Applications
2023–25
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%84%202483%2025
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate84% · 17th 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 reports59 officer reports parsed
17%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
10%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
14%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
72%
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
6.32× borough avg
Trees & landscape
2.22× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
1.89× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.66× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.52× borough avg

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

Assigned Sam Benson 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 this is unacceptable, and the application should be refused on this basis.”

244282FUL · recommendation: Planning permission is Refused.

“Policy SI1 of the London Plan (2021) states that development proposals should not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality, create any new areas that exceed air quality limits or create any unacceptable risk of high levels of exposure to poor air quality.”

244284FUL · recommendation: Grant subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

“The nature of the care home is residential which is not a noise generating use and as such the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable noise or disturbance to neighbours.”

252647FUL · recommendation: Grant, subject to conditions.

Measured from 59 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 59 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4
33 times cited
D1
19 times cited
D3
15 times cited
D6
15 times cited
T5
13 times cited
D14
13 times cited
T6
11 times cited
T6.1
9 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
15
86%
13
85%
12
83%
12
83%
12
83%
11
73%
11
73%
9
100%
8
100%
7
100%
7
86%
7
86%
7
86%
6
83%
5
80%
5
80%
5
100%
5
50%
4
75%
3
67%
3
100%
1
100%
1
0%
15
86%
13
85%
12
83%
Show all 23 rows
12
83%
12
83%
11
73%
11
73%
9
100%
8
100%
7
100%
7
86%
7
86%
7
86%
6
83%
5
80%
5
80%
5
100%
5
50%
4
75%
3
67%
3
100%
1
100%
1
0%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–25.[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
251654FUL
Full Application
Approved
2025-11-07
251745FUL
Full Application
Approved
2025-10-10
251654FUL
Full Application
Approved
2025-11-07
251745FUL
Full Application
Approved
2025-10-10
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 169 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Plans 4 U Ltd
2. Excel Planning
3. Redwoods Projects
4. Rapleys LLP
At a glance
OfficerSam Benson
BoroughEaling
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications169 (2023–25)
Approval rate84%
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, 2023–25. · 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 59 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.