Grace Hewett.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 59% across 719 decided planning applications, spanning 26 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×.
Hewett's reports run heavily on flat conversions and small-scale change-of-use applications, and her prose is unusually precise on the Croydon Local Plan's small-family-home tests (DM1.2's 130sqm/3-bed net-loss threshold, SP2.7's 30% family-home target), routinely stating the host dwelling's exact 'as originally built' floor area in square metres before concluding whether a conversion complies. She refuses on internal principle even where the physical scheme itself would be acceptable (20/00741/FUL: extension previously assessed as not harmful, refused anyway for the net loss of a 3-bed unit under Policy DM1), suggesting she treats the housing-mix policy test as a genuinely independent gate rather than folding it into an overall balance.
· states the host dwelling's exact internal floor area in sqm 'as originally built' before testing it against DM1/DM1.2's 130sqm and 3-bed thresholds, rather than describing the dwelling size only qualitatively
· separates 'Principle of the Proposed Development' from the physical/amenity tests as its own independent paragraph, and will recommend refusal on the principle test alone even when the physical scheme is assessed as acceptable
· on GPDO/Lawful Development Certificate refusals, cites the specific Schedule 2 Class/Paragraph letter (e.g. 'Paragraph A.1 (f) (i) of Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2') rather than a general non-compliance statement
· the host dwelling's precise internal floor area as originally built, tested directly against the DM1.2 130sqm/3-bed net-loss threshold
· whether a re-provided unit genuinely meets the SP2.7 30% family-home (3+ bed) strategic target rather than merely retaining unit count
· the exact Schedule 2 Class/Paragraph citation a GPDO scheme fails, rather than a general 'does not comply' statement
“the property (as originally built) is considered to be a 3-bedroom small family dwellinghouse. 5.4 Furthermore, the proposal fails to re-provide an equivalent 3-bedroom unit and it is thus considered that the proposed conversion would result in the loss of small family housing and is contrary to Policy DM1”
20/00741/FUL
“The proposed single-storey rear/side extension would extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by 7.40m and would thus not comply with the criteria of Paragraph A.1 (f) (i) of Class A, Part 1, Schedule 2”
20/01727/LP
Measured from 361 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 361 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 26 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 361 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.