Yuran Jin.
Recently active — last recorded decision Sep 2025
A case officer at Ealing with an approval rate of 74% across 393 decided planning applications, spanning 25 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×.
Jin's Certificate-of-Existing-Use reports show a distinctly sceptical, evidence-auditing style: he lists exactly which categories of corroborating evidence are absent (council tax records, utility bills, electoral roll) even when tenancy agreements are present, and cross-references submitted evidence against independent sources like Google Street View to spot contradictions rather than accepting the applicant's timeline at face value. His design assessments name the specific policy requirement (e.g. D3's "appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity") before applying it to the named neighbouring address.
· in evidence-of-use certificates, explicitly lists the categories of corroborating evidence that are MISSING even where some documents were submitted, rather than assessing only what was provided
· cross-checks the applicant's own evidence (invoices, tenancy dates) against independent sources like Google Street View historical imagery to identify contradictions
· names the specific London Plan policy clause and its wording (e.g. "appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity") immediately before applying it to a named neighbouring property
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an explicit list of which standard evidence categories (council tax, utility bills, electoral roll) are ABSENT from a Certificate of Lawfulness submission, not just what was provided
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: independent corroboration (e.g. Google Street View date-stamped imagery) for any claimed continuous use period, flagging discrepancies with submitted documents
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific wording of the cited London Plan design policy applied directly to the named neighbouring property at issue
“The applicant fails to submit the council tax records in the past 4 years. It is also recognized that the council tax band of 319 Ruislip Road East, Greenford, Middlesex, UB6 9BG has been deleted from the public viewable government website”
224144CPE
“The submitted Google Street historical site views from 2008 to 2021 identified were different from the officer's findings. The site was identified being used as car sales in 2008 and MOT - Recovery services in 2012”
225016CPE
Measured from 131 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 131 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 25 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–25.[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, 2021–25. · 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 131 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.