Development Intent
AtlasCroydonOfficersChristopher Grace
Planning Atlas›Croydon›Christopher Grace
Case officer · Croydon Planning

Christopher Grace.

Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026

A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 47% across 352 decided planning applications, spanning 24 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer352 decisions47% approvalSave
Croydon · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
352
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%39%202044%202145%202232%202361%202458%202575%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate47% · 78th of 83
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports158 officer reports parsed
23%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
2%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
9%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
89%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Croydon's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Croydon reports. Attention, not stance.

Energy & sustainability
1.86× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.56× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.5× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.45× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.37× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Grace's reports read as strongly pre-application-aware, repeatedly noting where a scheme's design was already discussed and refined during pre-app discussions before the formal submission, and citing the exact reduction achieved since (e.g. a depth cut back from pre-app stage to meet the Suburban Design Guide's separation-distance guidance). He runs precise parking-stress-survey percentage evidence against the borough's 90% stress threshold, and is willing to refuse purely on refuse/waste-location grounds even where design and neighbour-amenity tests otherwise pass, treating unresolved waste-storage detail as a standalone policy conflict rather than a conditionable afterthought.

Observable habits

· notes explicitly where a scheme has already been through pre-application discussion and cites the specific design change achieved since (e.g. depth reduced to meet Suburban Design Guide separation-distance guidance) as evidence the applicant engaged constructively

· quotes the exact parking-stress-survey percentage figure against the commonly used 90% stress threshold before concluding whether additional car demand from a scheme is acceptable

· treats refuse/waste storage that lacks demonstrated capacity, security, or screening as an independent policy conflict under DM13, capable of sustaining a refusal on its own rather than being folded into a wider design judgement

What their reports consistently look for

· explicit evidence that a scheme's design was refined through pre-application discussion, with the specific change quantified

· a parking-stress-survey percentage figure tested against the 90% stress threshold, not just PTAL proximity to transport

· demonstrated refuse-storage capacity, security and screening under DM13, treated as capable of sustaining a refusal alone

Assigned Christopher Grace on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“The depth of the rear extension has been reduced from pre-application stage to respect the guidance outlined in the Suburban Design Guide (SPD2) the separation distance between new to new dwellings should be 12m”

20/00559/FUL

“76% parking stress within Zone W (Zone in which the property is located) and an anticipated demand from the 4 additional units of 2 cars. This additional demand would not breach the 90% level commonly used to indicate stressed parking”

20/00559/FUL

Measured from 158 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 158 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

3.3
15 times cited
5.2
14 times cited
D6
12 times cited
D3
12 times cited
H2
10 times cited
DM29Promoting sustainable travel and reducing congestion
8 times cited
DM30Car and cycle parking in development
7 times cited
D12
7 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
67
47%
66
39%
45
51%
21
44%
15
46%
14
50%
13
58%
12
83%
9
0%
9
33%
9
88%
8
50%
8
57%
8
25%
8
50%
7
60%
7
67%
6
80%
6
33%
5
20%
4
100%
3
33%
1
100%
1
0%
67
47%
66
39%
45
51%
Show all 24 rows
21
44%
15
46%
14
50%
13
58%
12
83%
9
0%
9
33%
9
88%
8
50%
8
57%
8
25%
8
50%
7
60%
7
67%
6
80%
6
33%
5
20%
4
100%
3
33%
1
100%
1
0%

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
26/01044/FUL
Full planning permission
Approved
2026-06-04
26/00743/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-03
26/01044/FUL
Full planning permission
Approved
2026-06-04
26/00743/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-03
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 352 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. STERLING ROSE HOMES LTD
2. Sherwood Architects Ltd
3. Howard Fairbairn Project Services Ltd
4. STERLING ROSE DEVELOPMENTS LTD
At a glance
OfficerChristopher Grace
BoroughCroydon
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications352 (2020–26)
Approval rate47%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [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. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 158 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.