Katy Park.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 75% across 452 decided planning applications, spanning 16 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×.
Park's reports are the most current-policy-aware in the sampled corpus (2025/26 casework), routinely applying the mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain regime under Schedule 7A of the 1990 Act (as amended by the Environment Act 2021/Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023) and testing whether a scheme is exempt under the 25sqm habitat-loss threshold rather than assuming BNG doesn't apply. She runs a labelled GIA/amenity-space/storage table against London Plan Policy D6 and Table 3.1 for nearly every scheme, and is careful to distinguish an HMO's protected status (London Plan H9(D) 'should generally be protected') from Croydon's own lack of a specific HMO-protection policy, rather than conflating regional and local policy positions.
· tests whether a scheme is exempt from the mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain condition under the Schedule 7A/Environment Act 2021 25sqm habitat-loss threshold, rather than assuming BNG is inapplicable to small schemes
· builds a labelled table of GIA, amenity space, and built-in storage space against London Plan Policy D6 and Table 3.1 for the specific unit mix proposed
· explicitly distinguishes what the LONDON PLAN says about HMO protection (H9(D)) from the fact that CROYDON has no specific local policy protecting HMOs, rather than treating the two policy levels as interchangeable
· whether a scheme's habitat loss falls within the Biodiversity Net Gain 25sqm exemption threshold, tested explicitly rather than assumed
· a completed GIA/amenity/storage table against London Plan Policy D6 and Table 3.1 for the specific unit mix
· whether HMO protection is actually engaged under Croydon's own policy (rather than only the London Plan's aspirational H9(D))
“In accordance with Regulation 4 of the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024, development sites that do not result in the loss of more than 25 square metres of habitat (excluding irreplaceable habitat) may be exempt from the mandatory BNG requirement”
25/02197/FUL
“London Plan policy H9(D) states `Boroughs should take account of the role of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) in meeting local and strategic housing needs. Where they are of a reasonable standard they should generally be protected', but Croydon does not have a specific policy protecting HMOs”
25/03230/FUL
Measured from 43 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 43 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 16 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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, 2021–26. · 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 43 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.