Development Intent
AtlasCroydonOfficersNatalie Rowland
Planning Atlas›Croydon›Natalie Rowland
Case officer · Croydon Planning

Natalie Rowland.

Last recorded decision May 2023 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 42% across 42 decided planning applications, spanning 20 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer42 decisions42% 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 →
42
Applications
2020–23
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%57%202137%202243%2023
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate42% · 80th 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 reports21 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
93%
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.

Trees & landscape
12.94× borough avg

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

Assigned Natalie Rowland 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

“A total of 15 trees were surveyed however as shown on the Tree Protection Plans submitted as part of the report, many of the trees are situated on the boundary line location/neighbour's site and as such their retention and protection is to be assumed as part of the scheme.”

21/03347/FUL

Measured from 21 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 21 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

H2
2 times cited
SP2Homes
2 times cited
D4
2 times cited
DM10Design and character
1 times cited
DM10.6
1 times cited
DM13Refuse and recycling
1 times cited
D12
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
7
33%
5
0%
3
100%
3
100%
3
67%
3
33%
2
0%
2
0%
2
0%
2
0%
1
100%
1
–
1
0%
1
100%
1
–
1
100%
1
0%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%
7
33%
5
0%
3
100%
Show all 20 rows
3
100%
3
67%
3
33%
2
0%
2
0%
2
0%
2
0%
1
100%
1
–
1
0%
1
100%
1
–
1
100%
1
0%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[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
21/03453/FUL
Full planning permission
Withdrawn
2023-08-15
23/01989/FUL
Full planning permission
Refused
2023-08-02
21/03453/FUL
Full planning permission
Withdrawn
2023-08-15
23/01989/FUL
Full planning permission
Refused
2023-08-02
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 42 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. OB Architecture
2. Brian Madge Ltd
3. Savills
4. Kappa Planning Ltd
At a glance
OfficerNatalie Rowland
BoroughCroydon
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications42 (2020–23)
Approval rate42%
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, 2020–23. · 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 21 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.