Development Intent
AtlasEalingOfficersShirley Ho
Case officer · Ealing Planning

Shirley Ho.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 92% across 93 decided planning applications, spanning 21 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer93 decisions92% 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 →
93
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%75%202594%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate92% · 5th 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 reports61 officer reports parsed
9%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
5%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
2%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
53%
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
4.2× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
2.13× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.58× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.31× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.06× borough avg

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

Assigned Shirley Ho 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 →

Measured from 61 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 61 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4
30 times cited
D3
23 times cited
D6
10 times cited
HC1
8 times cited
D1
7 times cited
D8
3 times cited
D5
3 times cited
T6
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

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
261394HH
Householder
Refused
2026-06-10
261197FUL
Full Application
Approved
2026-06-03
261394HH
Householder
Refused
2026-06-10
261197FUL
Full Application
Approved
2026-06-03
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 93 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Red and White
2. Studio CAD Projects Ltd
3. Anglian Home Improvements
4. Artisan Arena Ltd
At a glance
OfficerShirley Ho
BoroughEaling
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications93 (2020–26)
Approval rate92%
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 61 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.