Paul Young.
Last recorded decision Feb 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 80% across 40 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×.
Young's caseload is dominated by flat conversions and small multi-unit schemes, and he consistently presents a numbered unit-by-unit GIA/private-amenity-space table (required vs provided in sqm) before reaching a mix/quality finding, rather than a qualitative description. On the DM1/SP2.7 housing-mix tests he treats a strategic 30% three-bed target as a genuine independent test that can trigger refusal even where GIA/amenity standards are otherwise met, and separately, on parking, he is willing to model likely car ownership using TfL borough-level year-on-year growth data against a specific ward's census figures rather than applying a flat London Plan maximum uncritically.
· presents a numbered unit-by-unit table of GIA and private amenity space (required vs provided, in sqm) for every unit before reaching a mix/quality finding, rather than a qualitative summary
· treats the SP2.7 30% three-or-more-bedroom strategic target as an independently testable requirement that can support refusal even where individual unit quality/GIA standards are otherwise met
· models likely car ownership demand using TfL borough-level year-on-year growth percentages applied to ward-level census data, rather than applying a flat London Plan parking maximum uncritically
· the precise required-vs-provided GIA and private amenity space in square metres for every unit in a scheme
· whether the scheme meets the SP2.7 30% three-or-more-bedroom strategic target, tested independently of unit quality
· modelled likely car ownership demand using TfL growth data applied to the relevant ward's census figures, rather than a flat parking maximum
“The proposed development would not provide any three bedroom units, and so would not meet this target.”
20/01236/FUL
“Census data for the Norbury ward, factoring a 0.75% increase in car ownership per year (from TFL data) would suggest that the residential aspect of the development would generate 3.75 cars.”
20/01236/FUL
Measured from 40 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 40 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 40 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.