Dean Gibson.
Last recorded decision Jan 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 62% across 94 decided planning applications, spanning 18 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 Croydon reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Gibson's corpus is weighted towards larger schemes (major full applications, outline permissions, telecoms masts) and his reports are notably thorough on window-to-window separation distances measured in exact metres against the Suburban Design Guide's 18m standard, often across multiple named neighbouring addresses in the same paragraph. He is willing to accept a shortfall against one numeric standard (e.g. retained rear garden falling short of 200m2) where a compensating factor is present (10m garden length retained instead), treating the SDG tests as a basket to be weighed rather than individually fatal thresholds.
· measures window-to-window separation distances in exact metres against the Suburban Design Guide's 18m standard, addressing each affected neighbouring property by name/address in turn rather than a general privacy statement
· explicitly weighs a shortfall against one SDG numeric test (e.g. retained garden area below 200m2) against a compensating factor that is met (10m garden length), rather than treating either test as independently fatal
· on telecoms/mast prior-approval applications, works sequentially through each GPDO Class A1 statutory criterion by letter before reaching a conclusion
· exact window-to-window separation distances in metres against the Suburban Design Guide's 18m standard, addressed per named neighbouring property
· whether a shortfall against one garden-retention numeric test is offset by compliance with the other (length vs area)
· each GPDO Class A1 statutory criterion addressed in turn for telecoms mast prior-approval applications
“The rear window-to-window distances to the dwellings in Ravensdale Gardens would achieve 18 metres (including balcony projections), and the stepped design of the proposed building assists in achieving that outcome”
20/03448/FUL
“While the retained rear garden would fall short of being 200m2 per property it is considered that with the 10 metre length of rear gardens retained the shortfall in area would not be detrimental to the amenity of existing occupiers”
20/03448/FUL
Measured from 99 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.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 99 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 18 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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 Croydon planning register and published decision notices, 2020–22. · 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 Croydon 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 99 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.