Development Intent
AtlasBarnetOfficersAmy Lee
Planning Atlas›Barnet›Amy Lee
Case officer · Barnet Planning

Amy Lee.

Last recorded decision Aug 2021 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 78% across 158 decided planning applications, spanning 10 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer158 decisions78% approvalSave
Barnet · 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 →
158
Applications
2020–21
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%78%202080%2021
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate78% · 60th of 85
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 reports67 officer reports parsed
18%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
9%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
55%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Barnet's average officer

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

Character & heritage
1.12× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.03× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
0.86× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
0.77× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
0.72× borough avg

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

Assigned Amy Lee 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 two storey rear extension would NOT comply with the requirements of Class A of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended”

20/0318/192

“Barnet Council interprets a 'significant gap' must have at least 0.5m between two buildings. In this case, the 0.25m would be considered as an unacceptable proximity”

20/0459/192

Measured from 67 published Barnet 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 67 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

CS NPPF
13 times cited
CS1 arnet’s place shaping strategy – protection,
13 times cited
CS5 rotecting and enhancing Barnet’s character
11 times cited
DM01Protecting Barnet’s character and amenity Page
10 times cited
DM02Development standards Page
7 times cited
DM06Barnet’s heritage and conservation Page
3 times cited
DM17Travel Impact and Parking Standards
2 times cited
CS6Promoting Barnet’s town centres
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
44
83%
27
77%
26
79%
23
82%
19
72%
10
67%
6
67%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
44
83%
27
77%
26
79%
Show all 10 rows
23
82%
19
72%
10
67%
6
67%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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
21/3441/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2021-09-08
21/3892/FUL
Full Application
Refused
2021-09-08
21/3441/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2021-09-08
21/3892/FUL
Full Application
Refused
2021-09-08
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 158 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. UPP - Urban Planning Practice
2. A.J Ferryman & Associates
3. HOMES DESIGN LTD
4. CBLS Consultants
At a glance
OfficerAmy Lee
BoroughBarnet
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications158 (2020–21)
Approval rate78%
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 Barnet planning register and published decision notices, 2020–21. · 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 Barnet 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 67 published Barnet 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.