Asha Chhabhaiya.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 78% across 882 decided planning applications, spanning 29 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×.
Chhabhaiya's reports run heavily on householder rear/side extensions and roof alterations, and her prose consistently cites a specific comparable extension on the same street by house number and prior application reference before reaching a verdict, rather than describing character in the abstract. She is comfortable citing the exact depth reduction negotiated during the life of an application (e.g. from 6m to 4.1m) as the reason a scheme became acceptable, and on refusals she anchors harm to a named principle ('the principle of this development to build a new dwellinghouse in the rear garden... is considered unacceptable') rather than a purely dimensional complaint.
· cites a specific comparable extension by house number and prior application reference ('A similar extension is seen at No.17(F/04713/12)') before concluding a scheme is or isn't in character
· records the exact depth reduction negotiated mid-application as the acceptability threshold, rather than restating the final figure alone
· separates 'Character and Street Scene' from 'Residential Amenity' as two distinct headed sub-tests even in short householder reports
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a named comparable extension on the same street, with its own application reference, before accepting a scheme exceeds the standard depth guidance
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise mid-application depth reduction (before/after figures) that made a previously unacceptable scheme acceptable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a backland dwelling's access is genuinely independent of the frontage property it sits behind, before assessing it as a freestanding site rather than an extension
“It is found closing such gaps create a overbearing impact on neighbours”
20/0009/HSE
“Officers asked for amended plan to reduce the depth because it was felt that the increased bulk and massing of a further 2 metre brick built rear extension”
20/0040/HSE
Measured from 354 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 354 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 29 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 354 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.