Fiza Meeraj.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 87% across 58 decided planning applications, spanning 13 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×.
Meeraj's caseload spans householder extensions, retrospective/unlawful works and tree-protected sites, and she is distinctive for methodically working through a genuine lawfulness assessment on unauthorised as-built works — comparing the specific dimensions actually built against BOTH the original Lawful Development Certificate that was approved AND the GPDO criteria the built form would need to satisfy, identifying the specific technical breach (e.g. removal of eaves) that defeats the fallback position. On established local character she cites MULTIPLE named comparable properties on the SAME street with matching extension type and scale as evidence a proposal is consistent with the prevailing pattern.
· methodically compares as-built unauthorised works against BOTH an originally-approved Lawful Development Certificate and the GPDO criteria the built form would need to independently satisfy, identifying the specific technical breach (e.g. eaves removal) that defeats any fallback position
· cites multiple named comparable properties on the same street with matching extension type and scale as evidence a proposal is consistent with the established local pattern of development
· refuses outbuilding/extension applications near TPO-protected trees where no tree survey or BS5837-compliant arboricultural impact assessment has been submitted, treating the absence of evidence as determinative rather than assuming acceptability
· the specific technical dimensional or design breach (e.g. eaves removal) that distinguishes as-built unauthorised works from both an approved LDC and independent GPDO compliance
· multiple named comparable properties on the same street with matching extension type and scale as evidence of an established local development pattern
· whether a BS5837-compliant tree survey and arboricultural impact assessment has been submitted for development near TPO-protected trees
“The roof extension/vertical rear first floor extension is unlawful, for example permitted development rights for roof extension do not allow for removal of eaves.”
25/03056/HSE
“The submitted application does not include a tree survey, arboricultural impact assessment, or any supporting information in accordance with BS5837:2012”
26/00536/HSE
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 cited most on decision notices for applications Fiza Meeraj decided — 23 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.
Show all 13 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[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, 2025–26. · 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.