Development Intent
AtlasCroydonOfficersPeter Milles
Case officer · Croydon Planning

Peter Milles.

Last recorded decision Aug 2020 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 71% across 22 decided planning applications, spanning 10 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer22 decisions71% 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 →
22
Applications
2020
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average

Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.

What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate71% · 39th 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 reports20 officer reports parsed
25%
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
82%
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.

Flooding & drainage
3.04× borough avg
Materials & detailing
2.37× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.92× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.07× borough avg

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

Assigned Peter Milles 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 grey roof tiles will be in keeping with the neighbours roof tile colour at No.8 Croham Mount

20/01058/HSE

A minimum 2m wide access to the highway is required however to move bulk bins from the store to highway by operatives in accordance with Croydon's `New builds and conversions waste management guidance'. The proposal shows a narrow 1m wide gate at the entrance to the undersized 1.4m wide pathway.

20/02402/FUL

Measured from 20 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 20 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

7.6
8 times cited
SP4.1
4 times cited
DM10Design and character
4 times cited
DM10.1
3 times cited
7.4
3 times cited
7.1
3 times cited
DM18.2
2 times cited
7.5
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020.[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
20/02382/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2020-09-08
20/02402/FUL
Full planning permission
Refused
2020-08-12
20/02382/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2020-09-08
20/02402/FUL
Full planning permission
Refused
2020-08-12
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 22 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. AA Drafting Solutions
2. Hutchinson Design & Planning Services
3. PLANS INK LTD
4. iPlans
At a glance
OfficerPeter Milles
BoroughCroydon
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications22 (2020)
Approval rate71%
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. · 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 20 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.