Yik Shing Tai.
Recently active — last recorded decision May 2025
A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 91% across 267 decided planning applications, spanning 23 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×.
Tai's telecoms-mast reports assess visual dominance in explicit height comparison to the tallest surrounding feature (including street trees), stating a specific height differential rather than a qualitative "tall" judgement, and he audits the applicant's own alternative-sites justification rather than accepting it at face value. His householder reports use a stable roman-numeral "key considerations" skeleton similar to other newer-template officers, but he is distinctively thorough in naming BOTH adjoining neighbours' existing extension depths as parallel comparators in every case.
· for telecoms infrastructure, states an explicit height differential between the proposed structure and the tallest existing feature (including trees) in the vicinity, rather than a qualitative dominance judgement
· reviews the applicant's own alternative-sites justification for telecoms infrastructure as a discrete item to be tested, not accepted by default
· names BOTH adjoining neighbours' existing extension depths as parallel comparators in nearly every householder report, rather than assessing one side then generalising
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an explicit height differential figure between a proposed mast/structure and the tallest existing feature (including trees) nearby
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the applicant's stated alternative sites for telecoms infrastructure were genuinely considered and discounted for stated reasons
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: both adjoining neighbours' existing extension depths named individually as parallel comparators, not just the more affected side
“The monopole would extend to a height of 17m, which is significantly taller than any existing structure within the vicinity (including nearby street trees) which appear to give rise to a maximum height of 10m, with many being substantially lower”
224239PNT
“The Applicant's information outlines a number of alternative sites that have been considered, all of which have been discounted for varying reasons”
224239PNT
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.
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.
Show all 23 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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, 2020–25. · 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 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.