Ali Douglas.
Recently active — last recorded decision Mar 2025
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 65% across 466 decided planning applications, spanning 16 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×.
Douglas's caseload is dominated by outbuildings and rear dormer extensions, and he is distinctive for citing MULTIPLE named neighbouring addresses with rear dormers of similar design in the immediate street to establish an established local character pattern, rather than a single comparator. On the one refusal in the sampled corpus he is precise about distinguishing which of TWO separately affected neighbours would suffer unacceptable harm versus which would not, reaching a split conclusion (harm to two named neighbours, acceptable impact on a third) rather than a single borough-wide finding.
· cites multiple named neighbouring addresses with dormers or extensions of similar design within the immediate street as evidence of an established local character pattern, rather than a single comparator address
· reaches a SPLIT amenity conclusion distinguishing which specific named neighbours would suffer unacceptable harm from a proposal versus which would not, rather than a single blanket finding
· notes explicitly when details/sections demonstrating impact on specific affected neighbouring windows have NOT been submitted, treating the absence as weighing toward refusal
· multiple named neighbouring addresses with dormers or extensions of similar design establishing an established local character pattern
· which SPECIFIC named neighbours would suffer unacceptable harm from a proposal versus which would experience acceptable impact
· whether sections/details demonstrating the specific impact on affected neighbouring windows have actually been submitted
“There are many rear dormers of similar design and character on houses on Bingham Road, including the immediate neighbours, Nos. 124 and 128.”
21/05503/FUL
“It is also noted that details and sections indicating the impact of the proposal on these neighbouring windows have not been submitted”
21/05596/FUL
Measured from 30 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 30 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 16 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–25.[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, 2021–25. · 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 30 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.