Sissi Yang.
Last recorded decision Apr 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 82% across 60 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×.
Yang's corpus includes a notable share of Permission in Principle (PIP) applications and she runs a distinctive, structured windfall-site test explicitly separating 'Location of Development' from 'Land Use Proposed' and 'Amount of Development Proposed', citing NPPF paragraphs by number alongside the specific Croydon windfall housing target (10,060 homes on windfall sites). She is precise about relaying named consultee (Transport Officer, Tree Officer) objections verbatim into the report rather than paraphrasing, and treats those formal objections as carrying independent weight in the recommendation.
· on Permission in Principle applications, runs a structured three-part test (Location of Development / Land Use Proposed / Amount of Development Proposed) each under its own heading, citing specific NPPF paragraph numbers (68, 117, 123) rather than a general windfall-housing statement
· relays a named consultee's (Transport Officer, Tree Officer) objection close to verbatim, including the specific technical reasoning given, rather than summarising it as a bare 'objection received'
· explicitly notes when a scheme's parking-stress survey methodology was independently recalculated or challenged by the Council's own Transport Officer, distinguishing the applicant's figures from the Council's corrected ones
· a structured Location/Land Use/Amount-of-Development test for PIP applications with specific NPPF paragraph citations
· the exact technical reasoning given by a named consultee's objection, not a summarised restatement
· whether a parking-stress survey's methodology and site coverage was validated or corrected by the Council's own Transport Officer
“Council's Officer advised that we would not have wanted Bridle Road to be included in the survey and the parking stress results were recalculated without the spaces shown on that road”
20/01221/FUL
“It should be noted that the support for the location of development expressed above does not indicate support, or otherwise, for the proposed layout of buildings within the plot or the type and form of housing proposed”
20/01648/PIP
Measured from 52 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 52 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 12 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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 52 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.