Development Intent
AtlasCroydonOfficersVictoria Bates
Case officer · Croydon Planning

Victoria Bates.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 61% across 325 decided planning applications, spanning 26 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer325 decisions61% 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 →
325
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%55%202053%202149%202256%202378%202479%202578%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate61% · 61st 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 reports149 officer reports parsed
5%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
3%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
9%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
88%
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.

Daylight & sunlight
1.15× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.09× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.06× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.01× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
0.88× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Bates's reports run a consistently rigorous, room-by-room Quality of Accommodation test (Technical Housing Standards sqm figures per unit) even on schemes she ultimately refuses for reasons unrelated to accommodation quality, and she is precise on refuse-travel-distance measured in exact metres against the 30m Building-Regulations collection-distance norm. She treats a shortfall against a single numeric test (e.g. one unit 1sqm below standard) as non-fatal in isolation but stacks multiple lesser shortfalls (poor outlook, cramped stacking, refuse-travel distance) into a cumulative refusal rather than relying on any one factor alone.

Observable habits

· measures refuse-store travel distance to the collection point in exact metres against the 30m Building-Regulations norm, rather than describing it as merely 'convenient' or 'inconvenient'

· explicitly distinguishes a minor numeric shortfall (e.g. 1sqm below standard) as 'not basis for refusal alone' from a cumulative stack of lesser deficiencies that together support refusal

· cites the Mayor's Housing SPG 'Standard 30'/London Plan Policy 7.15 noise-transmission stacking-arrangement test between vertically adjacent rooms of different use, not just floor area compliance

What their reports consistently look for

· refuse-store travel distance measured in exact metres, tested against the 30m Building Regulations collection-point norm

· whether a parking-stress survey was conducted at a representative time and correctly excludes CPZ roads under the Lambeth Methodology

· whether a vertically-stacked layout (e.g. a bedroom below a kitchen/living room) complies with the Mayor's Housing SPG noise-transmission Standard 30

Assigned Victoria Bates 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 distance that residents would have to drag their bins the collection point is too far (and would not pass Building Regulations). This arrangement is not acceptable as it unreasonable to expect residents to drag full bins (landfill, recycling and food waste) more than 30 metres

20/00482/FUL

Parking stress surveys were undertaken in half term week which is not acceptable and included Whitgift Avenue which is in a CPZ and therefore as per Lambeth Methodology cannot be included in the surveys

20/00597/FUL

Measured from 149 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 149 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DM10Design and character
89 times cited
D3
50 times cited
7.1
30 times cited
7.4
29 times cited
7.5
29 times cited
7.6
29 times cited
3.5
29 times cited
DM1Housing choice for sustainable communities
16 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
26/01045/FUL
Full planning permission
Approved
2026-06-04
25/04010/FUL
Full planning permission
Approved
2026-05-21
26/01045/FUL
Full planning permission
Approved
2026-06-04
25/04010/FUL
Full planning permission
Approved
2026-05-21
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 325 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. STERLING ROSE HOMES LTD
2. Savills
3. THALAM
4. CANOPY PLANNING SERVICES LTD
At a glance
OfficerVictoria Bates
BoroughCroydon
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications325 (2020–26)
Approval rate61%
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, 2020–26. · 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 149 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.