Hayley Crabb.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 73% across 482 decided planning applications, spanning 23 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×.
Crabb's reports are unusually thorough on planning-history cross-referencing, repeatedly pulling the exact separation distances and window arrangements GRANTED under a prior application on the same site before assessing whether the current scheme worsens or matches that baseline. She is one of the more policy-citation-dense officers, reciting the full Local Plan/London Plan policy list at the head of most reports, and treats a departure from a previously-approved separation distance as independently significant even where the absolute distance might otherwise read as acceptable.
· cross-references the exact separation distance or design feature GRANTED under a named prior application on the same site (e.g. 'Application number 18/02001/FUL was granted with an approximate distance of 5.5m') before assessing whether the current scheme departs from that baseline
· recites the full applicable Local Plan and London Plan policy list under a 'RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES AND GUIDANCE' heading before the substantive assessment, rather than citing policies only as they arise
· treats obscure-glazing mitigation proposed for a single-aspect window serving a habitable room as insufficient where that window is the room's ONLY source of light, rather than accepting glazing conditions as a general fix
· the exact separation distance or design feature previously granted on the same site, used as the baseline the current scheme is tested against
· whether a proposed mitigation (e.g. obscure glazing) is being applied to a room's only source of light, which she treats as insufficient regardless of the glazing itself
· whether the full Local Plan/London Plan policy list relevant to the application has been stated up front rather than only cited where convenient
“this window serves a studio flat (kitchen/bedroom area) which is the only window serving this room and therefore obscure glazing this window would have a negative impact on the amenities of this occupier”
20/00567/FUL
“Application number 18/02001/FUL was granted with an approximate distance of 5.5m), thus the first floor is now closer to the main building to that previously granted”
20/00567/FUL
Measured from 184 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 184 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 rows
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.
- [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]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 184 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.