Development Intent
AtlasCroydonOfficersLydia Bruce
Case officer · Croydon Planning

Lydia Bruce.

Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026

A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 88% across 42 decided planning applications, spanning 11 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer42 decisions88% approvalSave
Croydon · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
42
Applications
2025–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%100%202587%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate88% · 3rd of 83
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports20 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
8%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
5%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
61%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Croydon's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Croydon reports. Attention, not stance.

Flooding & drainage
3.18× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.93× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Bruce's caseload is dominated by routine householder extensions, and she is distinctive for explicitly comparing a new application against a SPECIFIC previously-refused application on the same site (naming its reference and decision date), identifying precisely what has changed in the new scheme and whether that change resolves the prior refusal reason, rather than assessing the new application in isolation. She also flags the live procedural status of the emerging revised Croydon Local Plan 2024 examination in public where relevant, and notes EPC ratings and Retrofit London targets as a positive material consideration for external wall insulation proposals.

Observable habits

· explicitly compares a new application against a specific PREVIOUSLY REFUSED scheme on the same site, naming its reference and decision date, and identifies precisely what has changed and whether it resolves the prior refusal reason

· cites specific EPC ratings and the Retrofit London Housing Action Plan's 2030 target as a positive material consideration weighing in favour of external wall insulation proposals

· notes the live procedural status of the emerging revised Croydon Local Plan 2024 examination in public where relevant to a scheme

What their reports consistently look for

· the specific reference and decision date of any previously refused application on the same site, and what precisely has changed in the current scheme

· the property's current EPC rating measured against the Retrofit London Housing Action Plan's 2030 target when assessing external wall insulation proposals

· the live procedural status of the emerging revised Croydon Local Plan 2024 examination in public

Assigned Lydia Bruce on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

While this application differs from the previously refused application 18/05605/HSE (16.06.2020) in respect of the fact that the extension in this application is not proposed to wrap around the rear outrigger, it is considered that the height of the extension (3m) remains excessive.

25/04078/HSE

The property currently holds an EPC rating of D, highlighting a clear need for thermal insulation improvement.

25/03991/HSE

Measured from 20 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 20 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DM10.1
7 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
25/03857/FUL
Full planning permission
Approved
2026-06-03
26/00538/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2026-05-28
25/03857/FUL
Full planning permission
Approved
2026-06-03
26/00538/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2026-05-28
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 42 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. CANOPY PLANNING SERVICES LTD
2. O A Falusi Ltd
3. ARCHITEKTAS
4. krsdesigns
At a glance
OfficerLydia Bruce
BoroughCroydon
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications42 (2025–26)
Approval rate88%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Croydon planning register and published decision notices, 2025–26. · methodology
  2. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 20 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.