Ashley Niman.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 89% across 392 decided planning applications, spanning 22 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×.
Niman handles a notably varied caseload including HMO change-of-use, listed-building consent, and legal-agreement (S106) approvals alongside standard extensions, and repeatedly quotes an EARLIER officer's own analysis from a previous application on the same site verbatim before applying it to the current scheme. On listed-building work he pays close attention to the precise physical positioning of small additions (security cameras, plant equipment) relative to existing architectural features rather than treating them as generically minor.
· quotes a previous officer's own analysis from an earlier application on the same site verbatim, then applies or updates it for the current scheme
· on listed-building consent, positions small additions (cameras, plant) explicitly relative to existing architectural features (drainpipes, security lights) to justify inconspicuousness
· weighs identified housing need for a use (e.g. HMO) against the specific character of the ward rather than accepting a borough-wide need argument
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a previous officer's own written analysis on the same site, quoted and either endorsed or distinguished rather than restated from scratch
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise physical position of a small listed-building addition relative to named existing features, not just its size
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a demonstrated HMO need is specific to the application's own ward, not just borough-wide
“the presence of other HMOs in the area does not necessarily demonstrate an identified need for HMO type accommodation in this location particularly”
20/0518/FUL
“They are on the same plane as the security lights, so as not to break up the overall facade any further”
Site Address: 9 North Square NW11
Measured from 150 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 150 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 22 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 150 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.