Development Intent
AtlasCroydonOfficersNathan Pearce
Planning Atlas›Croydon›Nathan Pearce
Case officer · Croydon Planning

Nathan Pearce.

Last recorded decision Oct 2022 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 68% across 216 decided planning applications, spanning 18 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer216 decisions68% 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 →
216
Applications
2020–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%70%202070%202164%202260%2023
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate68% · 46th 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 reports169 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
1%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
81%
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
2.49× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.41× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.39× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.05× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.91× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Pearce's corpus concentrates on larger flat-conversion and residential-uplift schemes, and his reports are the most sustainability-standard-explicit in the sampled corpus, restating the exact national technical energy (19% CO2 reduction beyond 2013 Part L) and water-efficiency (110 litres/person/day) figures as a matter of course on nearly every scheme. He is precise on the SP2.7 family-home mix target expressed as a specific bedroom-count shortfall (e.g. concluding a scheme provides '2x 2-bed and 1x studio' against a lost 4-bed unit) rather than a general housing-mix statement, and treats an unmet family-home target as a standalone refusal reason.

Observable habits

· restates the exact national technical sustainability figures (19% CO2 reduction beyond 2013 Part L Building Regulations, 110 litres/person/day water efficiency) as a standard clause on nearly every scheme rather than a general sustainability statement

· expresses the SP2.7 family-home mix test as a specific unit-count comparison (e.g. '2x 2-bed and 1x studio' against a lost 4-bed unit) rather than a general housing-mix judgement, and treats a shortfall as independently sufficient for refusal

· recites the full applicable policy list (London Plan and Croydon Local Plan by policy number) under a 'RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES AND GUIDANCE' heading before the substantive 'MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS' section

What their reports consistently look for

· whether a scheme's sustainability condition matches the exact national technical figures (19% CO2, 110 l/person/day), applied as standard practice

· an explicit unit-count comparison against the SP2.7 family-home mix target, not a general statement that housing mix is 'acceptable'

· whether a proposed footprint conflicts with a named protected tree's root protection area

Assigned Nathan Pearce 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

“a condition requiring the proposals to achieve the national technical standard for energy efficiency in new homes (2015), which is set at a minimum of 19% CO2 reduction beyond the 2013 Building Regulations (Part L), and meet a minimum water efficiency standard of 110 litres/person/day”

20/00593/FUL

“The existing dwellinghouse is a 4-bed and the proposal would provide 2x 2-bed and 1x studio units. The overall mix of accommodation would not be acceptable and would result in a net loss of family accommodation”

20/05069/FUL

Measured from 169 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 169 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DM10Design and character
22 times cited
SP2.8
16 times cited
DM30Car and cycle parking in development
15 times cited
SP2.1
15 times cited
7.1
15 times cited
SP8.17
14 times cited
DM29Promoting sustainable travel and reducing congestion
14 times cited
DM13Refuse and recycling
14 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
31
55%
27
70%
21
71%
20
72%
18
78%
17
82%
13
73%
12
67%
10
50%
9
56%
9
56%
8
63%
6
100%
6
50%
3
100%
3
67%
2
100%
1
100%
31
55%
27
70%
21
71%
Show all 18 rows
20
72%
18
78%
17
82%
13
73%
12
67%
10
50%
9
56%
9
56%
8
63%
6
100%
6
50%
3
100%
3
67%
2
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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
21/06380/FUL
Full planning permission
Approved
2023-03-22
21/04094/FUL
Full planning permission
Refused
2023-03-15
21/06380/FUL
Full planning permission
Approved
2023-03-22
21/04094/FUL
Full planning permission
Refused
2023-03-15
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 216 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. M.J.Read Building Design
2. M A Newsome & Co Ltd
3. Happy Building
4. THALAM
At a glance
OfficerNathan Pearce
BoroughCroydon
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications216 (2020–22)
Approval rate68%
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, 2020–22. · 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 169 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.