Andrew Turner.
Active — last recorded decision Feb 2026
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 69% across 294 decided planning applications, spanning 23 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 Barnet reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Turner's caseload includes HMO change-of-use applications alongside standard extensions, and his HMO assessments name multiple SPECIFIC nearby institutional demand-generators (jobcentre, university) by distance in metres rather than a general 'need' statement, while separately confirming room-by-room floorspace figures against HMO space standards.
· names specific nearby institutional demand-generators (jobcentre, university, transport hubs) by exact walking distance when assessing HMO need, rather than a generic need statement
· confirms room-by-room floorspace figures individually against HMO minimum space standards, not a single averaged figure
· notes explicitly when a change-of-use application is 'retrospective' and separates the retrospective element from the physical alteration element (e.g. a new window)
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: specific nearby institutions (jobcentre, university) cited by exact walking distance as the evidence base for HMO demand, not a generic assertion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each individual room's floorspace figure checked against the HMO minimum standard, not a single averaged calculation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a clear separation between the retrospective (already-built) element of an application and any new physical alteration proposed alongside it
“Babington Road runs to the east off The Burroughs and is immediately opposite Middlesex University. The site is therefore within easy walking distance of both the University and Brent Street town centre”
21/0072/RCU
“This application involves no external physical alterations or extensions, so the building footprint, height and mass remains unchanged other than the introduction of a side window at ground floor level”
21/0072/RCU
Measured from 74 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.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 74 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 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 Barnet 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 Barnet 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 74 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.