Wayne Spencer.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Croydon with an approval rate of 47% across 135 decided planning applications, spanning 20 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×.
Spencer's corpus is weighted towards commercial-to-residential conversions and major schemes, and he is meticulous about naming the exact Council team (Transportation Team, Early Years Team) that raised or resolved a concern, and describing the specific negotiated change (e.g. bollards added to restrict parking-space use) that satisfied that team's objection. He runs precise refuse/cycle-storage distance tests against the 20m/30m collection-distance and walking-distance norms and treats a scheme's failure to demonstrate compliance with either as an independent Policy DM13 conflict.
· names the specific Council team (Transportation Team, Early Years Team, Tree Officer) that raised or resolved an objection, and describes the exact negotiated design change (e.g. bollards, restricted-use condition) that satisfied it, rather than a general 'concerns were addressed' statement
· measures refuse/recycling walking distances against both the 20m collection-point norm and the 30m resident-walking-distance norm as two DISTINCT tests, flagging failure against either independently
· on affordable-housing viability disputes, tracks the applicant's own inconsistent figures across different submitted documents (e.g. Planning Statement vs Affordable Housing Statement) and notes which was subsequently confirmed as correct
· the specific Council team that raised an objection and the exact negotiated change (not just 'no objection'/'objection raised')
· both the 20m collection-point distance AND the 30m resident-walking-distance norm tested independently for refuse compliance
· consistency of an applicant's own affordable-housing figures across its Planning Statement and Affordable Housing Statement
“The Council's Transportation Team now consider this arrangement to be acceptable and would require a planning condition stating that the parking spaces and the forecourt are to be used by staff only and not for pick-up or drop-off”
20/00244/FUL
“The furthest receptacle in the refuse/recycling store must be within 20m of the rear of the refuse vehicle which has not been achieved for the smaller refuse store”
21/03040/OUT
Measured from 41 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 41 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 20 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 41 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.