George Clarke.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 48% across 508 decided planning applications, spanning 23 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×.
Clarke's corpus concentrates on backland/rear-garden development and terraced-house alterations, and his reports are notably precise on the Suburban Design Guide's numeric subservience tests — separation distances in exact metres between a new backland dwelling and the host building, and height step-downs measured in metres rather than described qualitatively. He is willing to support the principle of backland housing supply while still refusing on the SDG's specific gap/height tests, treating the two as genuinely separate hurdles (20/01256/FUL, 20/01143/FUL).
· separates 'Principle' (housing-supply acceptability) from 'Character and appearance'/'Impact upon neighbours' as distinct headed tests, and will support the former while still refusing on the latter
· cites the Suburban Design Guide's specific metre thresholds for backland development (15m gap to host dwelling, height step-down in metres) rather than a general overdevelopment/harm statement
· on repeat rear-extension refusals at the same address, measures the exact projection distance past the neighbour's nearest habitable-room window in metres before concluding harm
· the exact metre gap between a proposed backland dwelling and its host building, tested against the Suburban Design Guide's 15m/18m thresholds
· the precise height step-down in metres a backland scheme achieves relative to the host dwelling it sits behind
· the exact projection distance in metres past a neighbour's nearest ground-floor habitable-room window before concluding loss of light/outlook
“The Council's Suburban Design Guide requires a gap of 15m from the host dwelling to a back land development with the intention of maintaining adequate levels of privacy and outlook for existing dwellings”
20/01256/FUL
“the proposal would extend past the nearest ground floor rear facing habitable room window at Number 8 by approximately 9 metres”
20/01784/HSE
Measured from 277 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 277 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 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 277 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.