Development Intent
AtlasCroydonOfficersTiffany Chan
Case officer · Croydon Planning

Tiffany Chan.

Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026

A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 84% across 382 decided planning applications, spanning 24 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer382 decisions84% 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 →
382
Applications
2021–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%95%202280%202373%202489%202595%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate84% · 8th 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 reports34 officer reports parsed
4%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
4%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
88%
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
7.1× borough avg

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

Assigned Tiffany Chan 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

As these garages do not constitute habitable space, the potential impact on them is not considered sufficient to warrant refusal.

25/03848/HSE

the extension would be positioned approximately 2.25m away from the boundary with No. 23 and further from its main dwelling

25/03848/HSE

Measured from 34 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 cited most on decision notices for applications Tiffany Chan decided — 26 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

D12London Plan
19 times cited
DM25Sustainable Drainage Systems and reducing flood riskCroydon plan
8 times cited
SI12London Plan
3 times cited
SI13London Plan
3 times cited
D3London Plan
1 times cited
D4London Plan
1 times cited
SP4Urban Design, Heritage and Local CharacterCroydon plan
1 times cited
DM10Design and characterCroydon plan
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
26/01052/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-04
26/00676/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2026-05-29
26/01052/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-04
26/00676/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2026-05-29
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 382 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. PLANS BY PARK LTD
2. LPR Design
3. Jameson Architectural Surveyors
4. The Harvest Partnership
At a glance
OfficerTiffany Chan
BoroughCroydon
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications382 (2021–26)
Approval rate84%
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, 2021–26. · 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 34 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.