Justin Reid-Weekes.
Last recorded decision Oct 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 79% across 39 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×.
Reid-Weekes handles a caseload weighted towards larger flatted schemes and telecoms masts, and he is precise on vehicle-access gradient standards, citing the exact SPD2 1:12 maximum gradient and 5x5m level-standing-area requirement against what a scheme actually achieves in metres. On telecoms masts he consistently benchmarks a proposed structure's height against nearby existing street furniture in exact metres (e.g. '5m higher than nearby existing streetlights') to ground a visual-intrusion finding in something measurable rather than a subjective impression, and is candid about listing every condition that would have applied to an otherwise-refused scheme.
· cites the exact SPD2 numeric gradient standard (1:12 maximum, 5x5m level standing area) against what a scheme's access ramp/driveway actually achieves in metres, rather than a general 'too steep' judgement
· benchmarks a proposed telecoms mast's height in exact metres against nearby existing street furniture (streetlights, other structures) to ground a visual-intrusion finding in a measurable comparison
· lists the specific conditions that would have applied (EVCP, boundary treatment, landscaping, S106 contribution) even within a refusal report, similar to the practice also seen in James Young's corpus
· the exact gradient (e.g. 1:6 vs the 1:12 maximum) and level-standing-area dimensions a vehicle access achieves against SPD2's numeric standard
· a telecoms mast's height benchmarked in metres against nearby existing street furniture, not a subjective 'prominent' judgement
· whether cycle storage is genuinely accessible to a disabled resident with an adapted bike, not just numerically sufficient
“The gradient of the slope would be 1:6 throughout which would be unacceptable as it would be too steep. The scheme would require a minimum 5x5m level standing area adjacent to the public highway whose maximum gradient is 1:12”
21/02420/FUL
“The proposed monopole at 18m high is 5m higher than nearby existing streetlights, and would be significantly taller than surrounding buildings and structures”
21/02945/PA8
Measured from 50 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 50 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 15 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 50 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.