Jeni Cowan.
Last recorded decision Oct 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 57% across 213 decided planning applications, spanning 20 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×.
Cowan's caseload spans HMOs, outbuildings and conservation-area alterations, and she is distinctive for tracking a site's ENFORCEMENT history explicitly within her reasoning, naming the specific enforcement case reference and noting when works have already commenced without permission before assessing the retrospective or related application. On uPVC-window replacements in conservation areas, she separately notes when the disputed windows may already be 'lawful through the passage of time' via street-view evidence, but treats this as legally distinct from and not determinative of the conservation-area character test.
· tracks a site's enforcement history explicitly, citing the specific enforcement case reference and noting when works have already commenced without permission before assessing a retrospective or related application
· on uPVC window replacements in conservation areas, checks street-view historical imagery to establish how long a feature has existed, but treats potential lawfulness through the passage of time as legally distinct from and not determinative of the character/appearance test
· on HMO outbuildings, cites a specific comparable outbuilding observed at a named neighbouring address DURING THE SITE VISIT as evidence that the scale is in keeping with the existing pattern of development
· the specific enforcement case reference and works-commencement date for a site under retrospective or related consideration
· street-view historical imagery evidence of how long a disputed feature (e.g. uPVC windows) has existed, kept separate from the character/appearance policy test
· a specific comparable feature observed during the site visit at a named neighbouring address, as evidence a proposal is in keeping with the existing pattern
“An enforcement case has been opened (20/00797/DEV) as works have already commenced (on 01/03/21). The applicant was advised to submit a retrospective planning application to retain the works or a lawful development certificate if it is considered that the works are lawful.”
21/03189/HSE
“While the windows may be lawful through the passage of time, this does not negate the need to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, which the uPVC windows do not.”
21/01937/FUL
Measured from 39 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 39 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 20 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–24.[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, 2021–24. · 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 39 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.