Morgan Cheung.
Last recorded decision Feb 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Sutton with an approval rate of 33% across 150 decided planning applications, spanning 18 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Cheung's reports on routine rear/side extensions and dormers are compact and formulaic, consistently framing acceptability around whether a scheme would 'read as a subordinate addition to the host dwelling' and would be 'in keeping with the built character of the surrounding area' — a phrase repeated near-verbatim across otherwise distinct schemes. Refusals in this sample turn on a specific measured excess (a full-width rear extension exceeding neighbouring precedent in depth or height) rather than a broader design objection, and Cheung is explicit about naming the two flanking properties 'most likely to be affected' before assessing amenity impact, in a similar house-number-first structure to several of her Sutton colleagues.
· uses the recurring formulation 'read as a subordinate addition to the host dwelling' and 'in keeping with the built character of the surrounding area' as the load-bearing test for design acceptability on routine extensions
· names the specific flanking properties 'most likely to be affected by the proposal' by house number before assessing loss of light, outlook or privacy
· on refusals, isolates a single measured dimension (height or depth) that exceeds the immediate comparator rather than raising multiple compounding objections
· whether a proposed extension would 'read as a subordinate addition' when measured against the host dwelling's own scale
· the specific flanking properties most likely to be affected, named by house number, before the amenity assessment begins
· a directly comparable extension of similar scale already present on the same street, used to justify subordination and character findings
“The extension is modest in scale and would read as a subordinate addition to the host dwelling and would be in keeping with the built character of the surrounding area”
DM2021/02184
“9 Meadow Road to the north and 15 Meadow Road to the south of the application site respectively are the property most likely to be affected by the proposal”
DM2022/00199
Measured from 223 published Sutton 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 223 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 18 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–22.[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 Sutton planning register and published decision notices, 2021–22. · 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 Sutton 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 223 published Sutton 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.