Jimill Patel.
Last recorded decision Mar 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 64% across 69 decided planning applications, spanning 14 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×.
Patel's reports concentrate on larger multi-unit flat schemes and are precise on separation-distance geometry between named neighbouring buildings, giving the exact metre distance from a proposed block's rear wall to each specific neighbour's side wall or outrigger in turn. He is willing to note where a scheme was previously refused at appeal and track how the current, smaller-massing resubmission addresses the Inspector's specific findings, treating the appeal decision as a binding reference point for the current assessment rather than starting the design judgement afresh.
· gives the exact metre separation distance from a proposed block's rear/side wall to each named neighbouring property's wall or outrigger in turn, rather than a single averaged distance for the whole scheme
· explicitly references a Planning Inspector's findings on a previously refused/appealed scheme at the same site and tracks how the current resubmission's reduced massing responds to those specific findings
· runs a full amenity-space and standards-of-accommodation table (GIA per unit) referencing the exact policy source (SP2.8, NDSS 2015) before crediting a scheme with compliance
· the exact metre separation distance to each named neighbouring property in turn, not a single averaged figure
· specific evidence that a resubmitted scheme's reduced massing responds to a Planning Inspector's prior appeal findings
· a completed GIA table per unit referenced against SP2.8/NDSS 2015, alongside the SP2.7 family-home mix target
“Whilst the massing of the previously refused scheme was larger than that proposed as part of this application, officers concluded that the proposal would not be detrimental to the amenities of the adjacent and surrounding occupiers”
20/00040/FUL
“The rear of the building which would contain flats 5 and 8 would have a separation distance of 21 metres to the side wall (at first floor) of 2 Julien Road”
20/00040/FUL
Measured from 68 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 68 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 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 68 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.