Joe Sales.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 56% across 395 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×.
Sales's reports are precise on the Suburban Design Guide's numeric depth caps for rear extensions (typically a 3.5m maximum from the original building line), citing the specific SDG section number and the exact proposed depth before concluding excess. He also runs one of the more detailed tree-impact assessments, naming individual protected tree references (TPO numbers, tree tags like 'T2'/'T4') and root-protection-area impacts rather than describing tree loss generally, and is willing to refuse purely on tree/landscaping grounds even where design and amenity tests pass.
· cites the specific Suburban Design Guide section number and its numeric depth cap (e.g. 'Section 4.11 (Point 1)... generally limits extensions to a maximum depth of 3.5m') before concluding a proposed extension is excessive
· names individual protected trees by their TPO reference or survey tag (e.g. 'T2, a category B scots pine') and discusses root-protection-area impact specifically, rather than describing tree loss in general terms
· structures Access and Parking assessment around a formal car-parking-stress-survey outcome (percentage figures before/after) rather than a qualitative PTAL judgement alone
· the exact proposed extension depth in metres tested against the specific Suburban Design Guide section's numeric cap
· individually named protected trees and their root-protection-area impact, not a general statement of tree loss
· a completed parking-stress-survey percentage (before/after) for schemes proposing reduced or no on-site parking
“The proposed rear extension will extend up to 6m beyond the original rear building line. This depth is beyond that provided for under Section 4.11 (Point 1) of the Croydon SDG, which generally limits extensions to a maximum depth of 3.5m from the original building line”
20/00236/GPDO
“there is currently a low parking stress of 18% on the street and that there will be a likely increase to 23% as a result of the proposed development”
20/01691/FUL
Measured from 176 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 176 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 176 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.