Alexander Green.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 79% across 647 decided planning applications, spanning 26 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×.
Green's reports handle a wide mix including GPDO/prior-approval determinations and householder highways cases, and he is precise on measured highway-safety detail — visibility-splay dimensions and gate setback distances given in exact metres against the Suburban Design Guide's numeric standard rather than a qualitative safety judgement. On S106/CPZ matters he is willing to refuse purely on transport-funding non-agreement grounds (21/03495/FUL) even where the physical scheme itself is otherwise acceptable, treating parking-permit-removal agreements as a hard prerequisite in controlled-parking-zone locations.
· measures visibility-splay and gate-setback dimensions in exact metres against the Suburban Design Guide's numeric standard (e.g. '1.5m x 1.5m' sightlines, '5m' gate setback) rather than describing highway safety qualitatively
· on CPZ sites, treats failure to secure a Section 106/Unilateral Undertaking removing parking-permit eligibility as an independent, sufficient refusal ground distinct from the physical design assessment
· works through GPDO Class A/AA statutory criteria sequentially against the submitted plans before reaching a conclusion, rather than summarising overall compliance
· the exact metre dimensions of visibility splays and gate setbacks tested against the Suburban Design Guide's numeric standard
· a completed Section 106/Unilateral Undertaking removing parking-permit eligibility before accepting a car-free scheme in a CPZ
· whether a submitted Fire Statement addresses each of Policy D12's numbered fire-safety criteria in turn
“Adequate pedestrian visibility sightlines of 1.5m x 1.5m, as demonstrated in Section 4.29 of the SDG, could not be achieved as the sliding gates overlap the static fence”
21/00411/HSE
“The applicant has been unable to enter into an agreement with the Council, therefore the proposal would not be acceptable on these grounds as it could lead to unacceptable impacts on parking stress within the locality”
21/03495/FUL
Measured from 243 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 243 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 26 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 243 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.