Development Intent
AtlasCroydonOfficersRyan Mcminn
Case officer · Croydon Planning

Ryan McMinn.

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

A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 77% across 48 decided planning applications, spanning 10 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer48 decisions77% 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 →
48
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 rate77% · 25th 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 reports33 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
85%
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
1.44× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.26× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.84× borough avg
Trees & landscape
0.83× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

McMinn's caseload is dominated by HMO room-standard applications, and he consistently presents a numbered bedroom-by-bedroom table stating required vs provided floor area in sqm against Croydon's specific per-occupancy standards (10sqm for 1 person, 15sqm for 2), treating a shortfall on even a minority of rooms as sufficient grounds for refusal on standard-of-accommodation grounds. On retail-to-residential change of use, he engages critically with submitted marketing evidence, noting when the marketing method (letters, boards, listings) did not demonstrate genuine interest but declining to treat weak marketing evidence alone as determinative without further context.

Observable habits

· presents a numbered bedroom-by-bedroom table of required vs provided floor area in sqm against Croydon's specific per-occupancy HMO standards (10sqm/1 person, 15sqm/2 persons), and will refuse where even a minority of rooms fall short

· critically assesses submitted marketing evidence for a retail-to-residential change of use, checking the specific marketing methods used (boards, listings, email, phone, mailing) rather than accepting a bare marketing letter at face value

· cross-checks parking-stress claims against direct evidence — Google Street View imagery and neighbour representations — rather than relying solely on the applicant's own parking assessment

What their reports consistently look for

· the precise required-vs-provided floor area in sqm for each individual HMO bedroom against Croydon's specific 10sqm/15sqm per-occupancy standards

· the specific methods used in a retail unit's marketing campaign (boards, listings, email, phone, mailing) and whether they demonstrated genuine market interest

· direct visual/evidential cross-checks (Google Street View, neighbour representations) of claimed parking stress rather than relying on the applicant's assessment alone

Assigned Ryan McMinn 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 proposal would not provide adequate accommodation in line with Croydon's standards for 2 of the 4 bedrooms. As such, the proposed development would fail to a provide satisfactory standard of accommodation

20/01202/FUL

Marketing included a marketing board at the site, posted on real estate websites, email, phone and mailing. The marketing evidence did not demonstrate significant interest of the property, however, this does not establish that a change of use to residential is appropriate

20/01011/FUL

Measured from 33 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 33 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

7.6
8 times cited
DM10Design and character
7 times cited
7.4
6 times cited
3.5
4 times cited
7.1
4 times cited
DM1.2
3 times cited
SP8.15
2 times cited
SP2.8
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
20/00725/FUL
Full planning permission
Approved
2020-11-19
20/03937/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2020-11-17
20/00725/FUL
Full planning permission
Approved
2020-11-19
20/03937/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2020-11-17
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 48 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. P+P Architects
2. Walk-in Architecture
3. NM Designs
4. P.R. Design for Building
At a glance
OfficerRyan McMinn
BoroughCroydon
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications48 (2020)
Approval rate77%
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 33 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.