Nisreen Karsou.
Last recorded decision Sep 2021 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 86% across 29 decided planning applications, spanning 14 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×.
Karsou's caseload is dominated by side, rear and wrap-around householder extensions, and she is distinctive for a near-formulaic recurring device — citing that 'aerial photographs indicate that a few properties along [the named street]' have been altered by similar size and design extensions — as her standard evidence for established local character, deployed consistently across many different streets rather than varying her justification style. On amenity impact she runs a repeated near-identical closing formula assessing 'daylight/sunlight or increased sense of enclosure' relative to specifically named adjoining properties, and is one of the few coded officers to explicitly distinguish rear-extension depth rules for semi-detached versus detached properties (45-degree rule application varying by house type).
· cites 'aerial photographs' showing that a few properties along the SAME named street have been altered by similar size and design extensions, as the standard, near-formulaic evidence for established local character across many different applications
· runs a repeated closing formula assessing loss of 'daylight/sunlight or increased sense of enclosure' relative to specifically named adjoining properties by house number, applied almost identically across reports
· explicitly distinguishes how the depth/45-degree extension rules apply differently for semi-detached versus detached properties depending on separation from neighbouring boundaries
· aerial-photograph evidence of similar size and design extensions already present along the same named street
· the specifically named adjoining property (by house number) most likely to experience loss of daylight/sunlight or increased sense of enclosure
· whether the host dwelling's status as semi-detached or detached, and its separation from neighbouring boundaries, changes which depth/45-degree rule applies
“Aerial photographs indicate that a number of properties along Wolsey Crescent have been altered by similar size and design extensions”
21/02299/HSE
“In semi-detached dwellings, where there is sufficient separation from neighbouring boundaries the 45degree rule can be applied to achieve a deeper footprint than 3.5m”
21/02292/HSE
Measured from 38 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 38 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021.[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. · 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 38 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.