Lauren Carroll.
Last recorded decision Apr 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Barking And Dagenham with an approval rate of 56% across 178 decided planning applications, spanning 18 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 Barking And Dagenham reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Carroll's caseload spans routine householder schemes, driveway/crossover applications and small commercial rear extensions, and she is notable for engaging with highway-specific process detail beyond the planning merits themselves — explaining the Highways Act 1980 offence of an unauthorised vehicle crossing and the Council's own dropped-kerb application process step by step, rather than treating vehicular access as a purely planning-policy matter. On commercial-frontage rear extensions she checks the specific distance to the nearest neighbouring commercial unit's own extension as the benchmark for character fit, mirroring the residential neighbour-comparison approach used elsewhere in the borough's corpus but applied to shop premises.
· explains the statutory/procedural highway process (Highways Act 1980 offence, Council dropped-kerb application steps) alongside the planning merits for driveway/crossover applications, rather than treating vehicular access as purely a planning-policy question
· for commercial-frontage rear extensions, checks the distance to and scale of the nearest neighbouring commercial unit's own extension as the character-fit benchmark, mirroring the residential neighbour-comparison method applied to shop premises
· on outbuildings replacing garden area, quantifies the exact percentage reduction in remaining garden space as a standalone metric alongside the SPD's own outbuilding guidance
· whether the relevant Council Highways Team dropped-kerb application process has been correctly flagged as a separate, required step alongside planning permission for a new driveway/crossover
· whether a neighbouring commercial unit already has a comparable rear extension establishing a character-fit precedent for the frontage
· the exact percentage reduction in remaining garden area caused by a proposed outbuilding, checked against the SPD's own minimum retention guidance
“It is an offence under Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 to drive a vehicle across the footway to gain access to a property if a properly constructed vehicle crossing is not in place”
20/00254/FUL
“The proposed development reduces the amount of Garden area from approximately 60.0sqm to less than 30.0sqm - reducing the amount of space in the rear garden by 50%”
20/01087/FULL
Measured from 167 published Barking And Dagenham 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 167 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 18 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 Barking And Dagenham 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 Barking And Dagenham 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 167 published Barking And Dagenham 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.