Development Intent
AtlasCroydonOfficersAndrew Foulkes
Case officer · Croydon Planning

Andrew Foulkes.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 73% across 281 decided planning applications, spanning 20 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer281 decisions73% approvalSave
Croydon · 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 →
281
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%79%202264%202370%202478%202577%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate73% · 34th of 83
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 reports35 officer reports parsed
12%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
3%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
78%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Croydon's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Croydon reports. Attention, not stance.

Bulk & massing
1.44× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.42× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.1× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.09× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.04× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Foulkes's caseload includes larger residential intensification schemes, and he is distinctive for explicitly noting when a wider POLICY CHANGE has occurred mid-process (the 2022 revocation of the Suburban Design Guide) and applying the resulting stricter density expectation retrospectively to find a previously-supportable quantum of development now unsupported. On pedestrian/highway safety he is precise in citing the exact sightline dimensional standard (e.g. 1.5m/1.5m with no features higher than 0.6m) and finding refusal-worthy failure where the applicant has not demonstrated compliance, rather than accepting the submission's general assurances.

Observable habits

· explicitly notes when a wider POLICY CHANGE (e.g. revocation of a design guide) has occurred and applies the resulting stricter standard even where the original quantum of development might once have been supportable

· cites the exact dimensional highway/pedestrian visibility standard (specific metre figures and maximum feature heights) and finds refusal-worthy failure where the applicant's submission does not demonstrate compliance against that precise standard

· separately assesses whether a site's PTAL and Controlled Parking Zone status justifies restricting car parking permits via unilateral undertaking, distinct from the base parking provision assessment

What their reports consistently look for

· whether a wider policy or guidance document relevant to the scheme has since been revoked or superseded, changing the applicable density/design standard

· the precise pedestrian visibility sightline dimensions (metres, maximum feature height) demonstrated (or not) in the applicant's submitted drawings

· whether restricting car parking permits via unilateral undertaking or s106 is warranted given the site's PTAL and Controlled Parking Zone status

Assigned Andrew Foulkes 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 →
In their own words

Following the revocation of the Suburban Design Guide in 2022 this quantum of development is no longer supported on this site.

21/02624/FUL

The submitted pedestrian sightlines are not of the required standard as they do not demonstrate a 1.5m/1.5m sightline either side of the opening in the boundary with no features higher than 0.6m within this area.

21/02624/FUL

Measured from 35 published Croydon 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 35 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D3
13 times cited
DM10Design and character
13 times cited
DM10.6
12 times cited
SP4Urban Design, Heritage and Local Character
9 times cited
D6
5 times cited
T5
3 times cited
DM27Protecting and enhancing our biodiversity and Urban Greening
2 times cited
D12
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
26/00454/FUL
Full planning permission
Approved
2026-05-28
25/02258/FUL
Full planning permission
Refused
2026-05-21
26/00454/FUL
Full planning permission
Approved
2026-05-28
25/02258/FUL
Full planning permission
Refused
2026-05-21
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 281 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Jameson Architectural Surveyors
2. Walk-in Architecture
3. Grainger Planning Associates Ltd
4. LPR Design
At a glance
OfficerAndrew Foulkes
BoroughCroydon
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications281 (2020–26)
Approval rate73%
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 Croydon 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 Croydon 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 35 published Croydon 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.