Tiffany Liang.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 80% across 373 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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×.
Liang's corpus is weighted towards householder flood-risk assessments and she runs a standard 'Relevant Policies: LP21 SI 12, SI 13, CLP18 DM25' citation header on nearly every report before her flood-risk paragraph, giving her flood reasoning an unusually consistent, citation-first structure regardless of the flood risk level found. On highway-safety refusals she is precise about the exact height of a boundary treatment (e.g. '1.88m high') and its effect on named sightlines to a specific adjoining road, and she is candid about referencing appeal-decision findings from a prior refused scheme at the same address when assessing whether a resubmission has cured the Inspector's specific objection.
· opens nearly every flood-risk paragraph with the same 'Relevant Policies: LP21 SI 12, SI 13, CLP18 DM25' citation header before the substantive risk-level and mitigation discussion, regardless of whether the site is high, medium or low risk
· measures boundary-treatment heights in exact metres (e.g. '1.88m high') and names the specific road whose vehicle/pedestrian sightlines are compromised, rather than a general highway-safety statement
· references a Planning Inspector's specific findings from a previously refused/appealed scheme at the same address when assessing whether the current resubmission cures that objection
· the flood risk zone and level tested against the standard LP21 SI12/SI13 and CLP18 DM25 policy citations on every report
· the exact height of a boundary treatment/gate in metres and its effect on named highway sightlines
· whether a resubmission specifically addresses a Planning Inspector's stated reason for a prior refusal/dismissal at the same site
“The proposed front boundary walls and railings is 1.88m high which would largely affect the pedestrian sightlines for the host site as well as the side access road”
26/00659/HSE
“The inspector stated that overall bulk and massing of the combined extensions would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area”
26/00804/HSE
Measured from 42 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 42 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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, 2021–26. · 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 42 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.