James Young.
Last recorded decision Sep 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 70% across 52 decided planning applications, spanning 20 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.
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×.
Young's reports run a distinctive counterfactual-conditioning style, routinely stating what conditions or contributions 'would likely have been sought' or 'would have been conditioned' even on schemes he ultimately refuses, giving unusually explicit visibility into what a resubmission would need to fix. He builds his own independently measured floor-area tables ('as demonstrated by the below table from measurements taken by officers') distinct from the applicant's submitted figures, treating officer-measured data as authoritative over the applicant's stated numbers where they diverge.
· states explicitly what conditions or Section 106 contributions 'would likely have been sought'/'would have been conditioned' had the scheme been recommended for approval, even inside a refusal report
· builds an independently officer-measured floor-area table ('measurements taken by officers') distinct from and preferred over the applicant's submitted planning-statement figures where the two diverge
· cross-references design elements against the officer's own report for a related prior application at a nearby site by exact reference number, rather than reassessing the same design point from scratch
· an independently officer-measured floor-area table, checked against the applicant's submitted figures for discrepancies
· explicit statement of what conditions/contributions would have applied had the application been recommended for approval
· cross-reference to a specific prior application by reference number for a design element already assessed at a nearby site
“as demonstrated by the below table from measurements taken by officers and based on size of bedrooms/unit typology, two of the proposed flats would not provide the minimum amount of internal floor area required by the London Plan (2021)”
21/03886/FUL
“Had officers been minded to recommend for approval, a financial contribution would likely have been sought towards improvements to sustainable transport including but not limited to on-street car clubs with electric parking ports”
21/03886/FUL
Measured from 52 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 52 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 20 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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, 2020–21. · 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 52 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.