Development Intent
AtlasSuttonOfficersSteven Hoang
Planning Atlas›Sutton›Steven Hoang
Case officer · Sutton Planning

Steven Hoang.

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

A case officer at Sutton with an approval rate of 55% across 65 decided planning applications, spanning 15 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer65 decisions55% approvalSave
Sutton · 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 →
65
Applications
2020–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%39%202167%2022
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate55% · 16th of 18
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 reports35 officer reports parsed
28%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
6%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
46%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Sutton's average officer

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

Transport & parking
1.49× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.41× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.18× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.07× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.05× borough avg

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

Assigned Steven Hoang 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

“the proposed 'InLink' unit would be noticeably taller than the existing phone box, and its design would also introduce a more modern appearance”

DM2021/01502

“the footway at this location is already very narrow and as the proposed InLink unit will be wider than the existing telephone kiosk, it will obstruct the footway even further”

DM2021/01481

Measured from 35 published Sutton 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 35 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

28Character and Design
29 times cited
29Protecting Amenity
19 times cited
36Transport Impact
16 times cited
D8
6 times cited
HC1
5 times cited
3Sutton Town Centre
4 times cited
37Parking
4 times cited
T2
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
9
33%
7
57%
7
71%
7
43%
6
60%
5
60%
5
80%
5
60%
4
50%
4
50%
2
50%
1
0%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%
9
33%
7
57%
7
71%
Show all 15 rows
7
43%
6
60%
5
60%
5
80%
5
60%
4
50%
4
50%
2
50%
1
0%
1
0%
1
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
DM2021/01484
Full Application
Approved
2022-07-19
DM2021/00568
Householder Application
Withdrawn
2022-05-30
DM2021/01484
Full Application
Approved
2022-07-19
DM2021/00568
Householder Application
Withdrawn
2022-05-30
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 65 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Harlequin Group
2. Augment Architecture
3. CANOPY PLANNING SERVICES LTD
4. Marrons Planning
At a glance
OfficerSteven Hoang
BoroughSutton
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications65 (2020–22)
Approval rate55%
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 Sutton 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 Sutton 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 35 published Sutton 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.