Development Intent
AtlasCroydonOfficersLaura Field
Planning Atlas›Croydon›Laura Field
Case officer · Croydon Planning

Laura Field.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 69% across 63 decided planning applications, spanning 18 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer63 decisions69% approvalSave
Croydon · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
63
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%67%20200%202150%202225%202380%202490%202558%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate69% · 45th of 83
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports25 officer reports parsed
17%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
17%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
91%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Croydon's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Croydon reports. Attention, not stance.

Transport & parking
1.53× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.21× borough avg
Materials & detailing
0.72× borough avg
Trees & landscape
0.54× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Field's caseload spans specialist education/care facilities alongside standard residential applications, and on children's care home applications she is distinctive for citing a NAMED national ministerial statement (the 23 May 2023 written ministerial statement on planning and children's care homes) as a material planning consideration explicitly weighing in favour, treating central government policy statements as directly citable evidence rather than only local/London Plan policy. On HMO cycle storage she is precise about testing whether a garage-based cycle store genuinely satisfies BOTH the physical layout standard (Sheffield stands, access width) AND the practical access mechanism (fob/keypad opening alongside car parking), refusing where the interaction between the two uses has not been demonstrated.

Observable habits

· cites a NAMED central-government ministerial statement (e.g. the 23 May 2023 statement on children's care homes) as a directly citable material planning consideration weighing in favour of a specialist-use application

· on garage-based cycle storage for HMOs, tests whether the physical layout standard (Sheffield stands, access width) AND the practical mechanism of access (fob/keypad opening alongside car parking) have BOTH been demonstrated, refusing where the interaction is unresolved

· on family-home housing-mix (DM1.2) refusals, cites specific Authority Monitoring Report percentage figures (e.g. only 13% of delivered units were three-bedroom against a 30% target) as objective evidence of unmet strategic need

What their reports consistently look for

· whether a named central-government ministerial statement directly supports a specialist accommodation use as a material planning consideration

· whether garage-based cycle storage satisfies both the physical layout standard and a demonstrated practical access mechanism alongside car parking

· the specific Authority Monitoring Report percentage figures evidencing unmet strategic need for family-sized homes

Assigned Laura Field on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“the planning system should not be a barrier to providing homes for the most vulnerable children in society”

25/00012/FUL

“The Council's Authority Monitoring Report (2023-2024) confirms that only 13% of new delivered in that period were three-bedroom units, which falls well below the 30% target.”

26/00643/FUL

Measured from 25 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 25 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D3
4 times cited
DM29Promoting sustainable travel and reducing congestion
3 times cited
DM30Car and cycle parking in development
3 times cited
D12
3 times cited
SP4Urban Design, Heritage and Local Character
2 times cited
DM10Design and character
2 times cited
SP8Transport and Communication
2 times cited
DM2Residential care and nursing homes
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
13
85%
6
60%
6
80%
6
33%
5
60%
4
50%
4
50%
3
100%
2
50%
2
50%
2
50%
2
50%
2
50%
2
100%
1
100%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%
13
85%
6
60%
6
80%
Show all 18 rows
6
33%
5
60%
4
50%
4
50%
3
100%
2
50%
2
50%
2
50%
2
50%
2
50%
2
100%
1
100%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
26/00937/FUL
Full planning permission
Refused
2026-05-19
24/04103/FUL
Full planning permission
Withdrawn
2026-05-13
26/00937/FUL
Full planning permission
Refused
2026-05-19
24/04103/FUL
Full planning permission
Withdrawn
2026-05-13
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 63 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. WS Planning & Architecture
2. ARCHPL LTD
3. G D Architects Limited
4. PLANS BY PARK LTD
At a glance
OfficerLaura Field
BoroughCroydon
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications63 (2020–26)
Approval rate69%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [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. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 25 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.