Carolyn Southall.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 67% across 411 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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×.
Southall's reports run a detailed London Plan Policy D6 bedroom-width test (the 2.75m/2.55m double-bedroom width thresholds, distinct from floor-area alone) on nearly every scheme, and she is precise on refuse-store accessibility measured by the actual physical route (steps, narrow paths, which street the collection point sits on) rather than straight-line distance. She treats a garden subdivision that falls short of the CLP's half-garden-retained default as still acceptable where the retained garden is comparable to neighbouring plots on the same terrace, showing a contextual rather than purely mechanical application of that policy.
· tests bedroom width in exact metres against London Plan Policy D6's 2.75m (principal double) and 2.55m (additional double) thresholds, distinct from and in addition to floor-area compliance
· assesses refuse-store accessibility by the actual physical collection route (steps, narrow paths, which street the store is accessed from) rather than straight-line distance to the highway
· applies the CLP's half-garden-retention default contextually, accepting a shortfall where the retained garden is comparable in scale to neighbouring plots on the same terrace rather than applying the threshold mechanically
· exact bedroom width in metres tested against Policy D6's 2.75m/2.55m double-bedroom thresholds
· the actual physical route (steps, narrow paths) a refuse store's collection point requires, not just straight-line distance
· whether a retained garden, even short of the policy default, is comparable in scale to neighbouring plots on the same terrace
“The two bedroom 65.5sqm flat would fail to provide an adequately sized double bedroom at only 10.2 sqm, and being located over two floors, the split level unit would fail to provide the overall gross internal floor area required by D6 F”
20/05698/FUL
“they would be accessed via steps from Foxley Lane and cannot be collected via the narrow path due to the topography of the site”
20/05698/FUL
Measured from 98 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 98 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 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 98 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.