Muhammad Saleem.
Last recorded decision Aug 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 69% across 44 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×.
Saleem's reports are precise about tracking a site's OWN planning history as the primary reference point for assessing a new phase of the same development (parking provision, flood mitigation, drainage conditions already secured under earlier permissions), explicitly noting where a current standalone application should be assessed afresh versus where it can rely on an already-discharged condition from the wider site. He is candid about weighing 'backdrop housing need' as a factor that can outweigh a shortfall against the family-home mix target, rather than treating that target as an absolute threshold.
· tracks a site's own prior planning history (previously approved parking levels, discharged drainage conditions under a named earlier application reference) as the primary comparator for assessing whether a new phase of the same development is acceptable
· explicitly distinguishes matters already resolved by a discharged condition on the wider site from matters that require fresh assessment because the current application changes the use (e.g. commercial to residential)
· weighs 'backdrop housing need'/borough-wide housing pressure explicitly as a factor that can outweigh a shortfall against the family-home mix strategic target, rather than treating the target as an absolute pass/fail threshold
· the specific prior application reference and discharged-condition number relevant to the current phase of a multi-application site
· whether a use change (e.g. commercial to residential) reopens a matter (flood risk, drainage) that was otherwise already resolved for the wider site
· whether backdrop housing need is explicitly weighed against a housing-mix shortfall rather than treating the mix target as a hard threshold
“The relevant condition has been discharged (18/06117/DISC)… the proposal is a shift from commercial to residential which needs new and full consideration”
20/04396/FUL
“given the district centre siting, time period between the original consent and backdrop need in housing, it is considered that a refusal on this ground would not be sufficient”
20/04396/FUL
Measured from 41 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 41 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 41 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.