Haniel Li.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 79% across 236 decided planning applications, spanning 15 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×.
Li's caseload spans HMOs, small infill dwellings and larger residential schemes, and he is distinctive for running detailed unit-by-unit GIA compliance tables with an explicit reasoned uplift calculation where a unit type falls outside the Nationally Described Space Standards (e.g. deriving a bespoke two-storey 1b1p minimum by adding the standard two-storey uplift to the single-storey figure). On unauthorised/retrospective works he cross-checks the as-submitted plans against SITE VISIT observations, explicitly noting where as-built dimensions appear to differ from what was submitted and seeking clarification from the applicant before proceeding.
· where a unit type falls outside the Nationally Described Space Standards' direct categories, derives a bespoke minimum GIA by applying a reasoned analogous uplift calculation (e.g. adding the standard two-storey uplift figure to the single-storey minimum) rather than treating the absence of a direct standard as removing the test
· cross-checks as-submitted retrospective plans against SITE VISIT observations, explicitly noting where as-built dimensions appear to differ from the submission, and seeking applicant clarification before proceeding
· on overlooking from a raised podium/platform near a boundary, calculates the SPECIFIC remaining metres of a neighbour's protected 10m amenity space that would and would not be affected, rather than a blanket overlooking finding
· a reasoned, analogous uplift calculation deriving a bespoke minimum GIA for a unit type falling outside the direct Nationally Described Space Standards categories
· whether as-built retrospective works, observed during a site visit, match the dimensions shown on the submitted plans, with applicant clarification sought for discrepancies
· the precise number of metres of a neighbour's protected 10m rear amenity space that would be directly overlooked by a raised structure near the boundary
“the minimum requirement for a two-storey 1b1p unit is considered to be 47sqm, derived from the 39sqm requirement for a single-storey 1b1p unit plus an additional 8sqm”
25/03845/FUL
“the as-built structure appears to be shallower. Clarification was sought from the applicant and agent, but no response has been received.”
25/01885/HSE
Measured from 31 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 31 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 15 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[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, 2023–26. · 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 31 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.