Robin Evans.
Active — last recorded decision Dec 2024
A case officer at Bromley with an approval rate of 67% across 11 decided planning applications, spanning 5 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 Bromley reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Evans has close to an even approve/refuse split (23/22 recorded in this sample), the least approval-skewed of the borough's volume officers, and handles a number of larger multi-unit new-build schemes rather than pure householder extensions. On resubmissions following a dismissed appeal, he explicitly lists each of the prior scheme variants by their own application reference and physical description ('pair of semi-detached and one detached...', 'terraced row of 3x two storey dwellings') before concluding the current scheme is 'materially different' and assessable on its own merits, a more granular precedent-tracking habit than a simple prior-refusal mention.
· when a scheme follows a dismissed appeal, lists each prior variant by its own application reference AND its distinct physical form before assessing whether the current scheme is materially different enough to be judged afresh
· assesses sustainability of location in transport terms (distance to named bus routes, topography discouraging cycling) as a discrete factor in the housing-supply balance rather than a generic sustainability statement
· checks proposed dwelling floor areas and room counts against London Plan 2021 minimum space standards room-by-room before endorsing standard of accommodation
· the specific application reference and physical form of each prior refused/appealed variant on the same site before judging whether the current scheme is materially different
· named, specific transport infrastructure (bus route numbers, stop locations) rather than a general 'sustainable location' statement
· a room-by-room comparison of proposed floor areas against London Plan 2021 minimum space standards
“the current application follows the previous applications 22/04415/FULL1 and 23/01783/FULL1 which were both dismissed in the recent appeal”
25/00945/FULL1
“The site is over 500m from the nearest bus stops of the R2 bus route in Norheads Lane and Kings Road. The area is also hilly thereby potentially discouraging regular cycling and walking”
25/00945/FULL1
Measured from 59 published Bromley 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 59 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.
No named planning consultants on this officer's decided applications.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Bromley planning register and published decision notices, 2024. · 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 Bromley 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 59 published Bromley 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.