Yvette Ralston.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 58% across 215 decided planning applications, spanning 27 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×.
Ralston's reports concentrate on larger multi-unit schemes and are the most ecology/landscaping-detailed in the sampled corpus, naming individual surveyed trees by category and tag and running full biodiversity mitigation assessments (bat emergence surveys, hedgehog/bird habitat) rather than a general tree-loss statement. On affordable housing she applies the London Plan H4/H5 fast-track test rigorously, refusing where a scheme falls short of the 35% threshold without a Viability Statement even where the physical design is otherwise acceptable, and is precise on Urban Greening Factor scores tested numerically against the London Plan G5 target.
· names individual surveyed trees by their category letter and tag (e.g. 'T1 Smoke Tree, Category C1') and discusses specific ecological mitigation measures (bat emergence surveys, hedgehog domes) rather than describing landscaping/ecology impact generally
· applies the London Plan H4/H5 affordable-housing fast-track test as a strict gate, refusing where a scheme's affordable percentage falls short of 35% without an accompanying Viability Statement, rather than treating affordable housing as a general aspiration
· cites the exact Urban Greening Factor score achieved (e.g. '0.3') against the London Plan Policy G5 numeric target (e.g. '0.4') rather than describing landscaping quality qualitatively
· individually named and categorised trees with specific ecological mitigation measures, not a general tree-loss statement
· whether a scheme's affordable-housing percentage meets the 35% London Plan H5 fast-track threshold, and if not, whether a Viability Statement justifies the shortfall
· the exact numeric Urban Greening Factor score tested against the London Plan Policy G5 target
“Firstly, a scheme can only be fast tracked in accordance with London Plan policy H5 if it complies with the development plan in all other respects (part C) and if it has demonstrated that the 50% strategic target has been considered and grant funding has been sought”
21/02056/FUL
“An Urban Greening Factor calculation is provided (although not accompanied by a drawing), showing a score of 0.3. This does not meet the target score of 0.4 set out in London Plan policy G5”
21/03452/FUL
Measured from 96 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 96 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 27 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 96 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.