Samantha Dixon.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 74% across 64 decided planning applications, spanning 12 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×.
Dixon's caseload spans routine householder extensions (largely reduced to formulaic flood-risk sign-offs) alongside at least one very large major retail/cultural-hub scheme where she engages in unusually broad multi-topic analysis spanning noise, biodiversity, community safety, equalities and Human Rights Act considerations. On the major scheme, she is notable for explicitly balancing Human Rights Act Article 1/Article 8 property and privacy rights against the volume of public objection (563 comments) and the public benefits of the scheme, rather than treating amenity harm and benefit as a purely policy-only balance.
· on routine householder schemes, reduces reasoning to a formulaic single-paragraph flood-risk/policy-compliance sign-off citing the specific policy numbers (SP4, DM10, SP6.4) rather than extended discursive analysis
· on major schemes, explicitly invokes the Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8) and balances it against the volume of public representations received and the scheme's public benefits
· tracks the iterative negotiation of ecological survey evidence (an initial Preliminary Ecological Appraisal found inconsistent, followed by additional survey work requested and provided) before reaching a conclusion
· the specific policy numbers (SP4, DM10, SP6.4) satisfied by a routine householder scheme's flood-risk and design compliance
· on major schemes, whether Human Rights Act property and privacy rights have been explicitly balanced against public objection volume and scheme benefits
· the negotiation history of ecological survey evidence, including any inconsistencies identified and additional survey work subsequently provided
“regard has been given to the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, particularly Article 1 of the First Protocol, which protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, and Article 8, which protects the right to respect for private and family life”
23/04071/FUL
“The ecologist found inconsistencies within the reports with regard to the surveys and assessment undertaken in relation to the bat roost potential of No.825 Brighton Road. As such further survey work was requested to be undertaken.”
23/04071/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.
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.
Show all 12 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 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.