Sean Moulton.
Last recorded decision Jun 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 90% across 400 decided planning applications, spanning 26 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×.
Moulton's reports consistently anchor conclusions in an explicit dated site visit ("a site visit conducted on..."), and he directly quotes the material's compatibility with named conservation area management plans (e.g. the encouragement of timber in Ealing Common CA) rather than relying on abstract design language. He also surfaces mid-process design revisions driven by named colleagues' review comments, visible as tracked-comment artefacts embedded in the reasoning text itself.
· anchors design judgements in an explicit, dated site visit rather than desk-based assessment from drawings alone
· quotes named conservation area management plan documents' specific material preferences (e.g. timber over uPVC) and applies them directly to the proposed materials
· reports come with visible tracked-review-comment artefacts showing a second reviewer's design critique and the case officer's response to it, embedded directly in the reasoning text
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific dated site visit underpinning any street-scene or shadowing judgement, rather than relying on drawings alone
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the named conservation area management plan's stated material preference (e.g. timber, not uPVC) applied directly to the specific proposed material
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a design has already been revised once through the application process in response to a named reviewer's comment, and whether the revision resolves the concern
“It was noted on a site visit conducted on 31 January 2020 that the existing rear extension is visible from The Common and that this would be of a similar height”
200053FUL
“Commented [GJ1]: These windows are really poor and don't relate well to the host building. Get this improved. Commented [SM2R1]: Windows have been amended (see Rev E)”
200741FUL
Measured from 125 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 125 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 26 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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, 2020–22. · 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 125 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.