Chris Stacey.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 77% across 63 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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×.
Stacey's caseload includes conservation-area shopfront and change-of-use applications alongside residential conversions, and he is distinctive for explicitly engaging with a fallback-position analysis when as-built retrospective works differ from an existing prior approval, naming the specific dimensional difference (e.g. an extension built 1.5m wider than approved). On private amenity space shortfalls in flat conversions he consistently applies a trade-off logic — where a unit lacks private amenity space it is examined for whether it is 'sufficiently oversized' to compensate, or whether adequate communal amenity space has been provided instead, rather than treating the shortfall as an automatic non-compliance.
· when as-built retrospective works differ from an existing prior approval, names the specific dimensional difference (e.g. an extra 1.5m of width) and explicitly considers whether the prior approval represents a genuine fallback position
· applies a trade-off logic to private amenity space shortfalls in flat conversions — checking whether the unit is 'sufficiently oversized' internally to compensate, or whether adequate communal amenity space has been substituted, rather than treating any shortfall as automatic non-compliance
· on M4(2)/M4(3) accessibility standards in constrained historic-building conversions, applies the flexibility provisions of London Plan Policy D7 supporting paragraph 3.7.6 explicitly rather than requiring strict compliance regardless of site constraints
· the specific dimensional difference between as-built retrospective works and an existing prior approval, and whether that approval represents a genuine fallback position
· whether a unit lacking private amenity space is sufficiently oversized internally, or whether adequate communal amenity space has been provided as compensation
· whether the flexibility provisions of London Plan Policy D7 supporting paragraph 3.7.6 justify relaxed accessibility standards given site constraints
“what was actually built has differed from this, namely the extension's width (which is 1.5m greater), which now extends up to the site boundary with the servicing yard”
25/00527/FUL
“both of these flats are sufficiently oversized to make up for the lack of private external amenity space, which given the constraints of converting an existing building, is deemed to be an acceptable solution”
25/01797/FUL
Measured from 29 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 29 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 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 29 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.