Demetri Prevatt.
Recently active — last recorded decision Apr 2025
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 51% across 203 decided planning applications, spanning 20 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×.
Prevatt's reports are the most legalistically structured in the sampled corpus, closing nearly every clause with a parenthetical policy citation naming the exact source document and policy number (e.g. '(London Plan - Policies D1, D2, D3, GG2, GG4 and H2; Croydon Local Plan Policies DM1, DM10, SP2 and SP4)'), and quantifying waste/cycle storage shortfalls down to the exact litre capacity and bin count required versus provided. He is notably forensic on evidence of misdescribed uses, citing physical site-visit observations (carpet indentations, doorway wear) as evidence that a 'storage room' was in fact being used as a bedroom, treating this as undermining the application's own stated basis.
· closes nearly every substantive clause with a parenthetical multi-policy citation naming both the framework and specific policy numbers together, rather than citing a single policy per point
· quantifies waste/cycle storage shortfalls to the exact litre capacity and bin/space count required versus what was actually provided, rather than a general 'insufficient storage' statement
· cites specific physical site-visit evidence (carpet indentations, doorway wear marks) to challenge an application's own stated room-use description, treating discovered evidence as undermining the applicant's case
· the exact litre capacity and bin/cycle-space count required under Croydon's Waste and Recycling Policy Document, tested against what is actually shown on submitted drawings
· physical site-visit evidence (wear marks, indentations) that contradicts an application's own stated description of a room's use
· a parenthetical multi-policy citation (framework plus specific numbers) supporting every substantive assessment clause
“the Case Officer also observed indentations on the carpet and joinery work within the doorway that suggest the door was only recently, and likely temporarily, removed”
20/05699/FUL
“the bin store proposed for the forecourt of the host property would, unacceptably, only provide space for four (4) waste bins and no space for bulky waste items”
20/05699/FUL
Measured from 58 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 58 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 20 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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, 2020–25. · 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 58 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.