Jedd Goodwin-Roberts.
Last recorded decision Jun 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 74% across 83 decided planning applications, spanning 11 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×.
Goodwin-Roberts's reports are structured with an explicit 'Sub Conclusion' or 'Sub-conclusion' paragraph closing each major topic before moving to the next, giving his reasoning a distinctly modular, checkpoint-by-checkpoint shape. He is precise on outlook/daylight harm to specific named bedrooms in specific flats within his own scheme (e.g. 'bedroom three in flat 3'), and is one of the more transparent officers about what conditions WOULD have secured had the application been recommended for approval, listing them even inside a refusal report.
· closes each major assessment topic with an explicit 'Sub Conclusion'/'Sub-conclusion' paragraph before moving to the next heading, giving the report a modular checkpoint structure
· identifies outlook/daylight/privacy harm to SPECIFIC named bedrooms within specific flats of the applicant's own proposed scheme (e.g. 'bedrooms no 1&2 in flat 1, bedroom three in flat 3'), not just neighbouring properties
· lists the specific conditions that WOULD have been imposed had the scheme been recommended for approval, even within a refusal report, rather than omitting conditioning detail once refusal is reached
· outlook/daylight/privacy quality assessed per named bedroom within the applicant's own proposed flats, not just as a whole-unit judgement
· whether sufficient highway information (swept path, visibility splay, storage) has been submitted to assess impacts, treated as a standalone sufficiency test
· an explicit 'Sub Conclusion' statement closing each topic before the report proceeds to the next
“concerns are raised with regards to the level of outlook for bedrooms no 1&2 in flat 1, bedroom three in flat 3 and bedroom 1 & 2 of flat two. These identified bedrooms have flank positioned windows directly on the foot path down the side of the building”
20/03008/FUL
“it is considered that insufficient information has been submitted with the planning application to satisfactorily assess the impacts of the proposal on highways matters”
20/03008/FUL
Measured from 86 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 86 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 11 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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, 2020–21. · 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 86 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.