Basya Markovits.
Active — last recorded decision Dec 2025
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 80% across 343 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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×.
Markovits' reports carry a comparatively high refusal rate concentrated on hip-to-gable and first/second-floor rear extensions that would unbalance a semi-detached pair, and she consistently separates the character objection from the neighbour-amenity objection into two distinct numbered reasons for refusal rather than merging them. Her prose is also notably precise about which neighbour is affected on which side, naming both the attached and the non-attached neighbour separately even in short reports.
· splits every refusal into a separate numbered character reason and a separate numbered neighbour-amenity reason, rather than a single combined refusal ground
· names the attached neighbour and the non-attached (across-boundary) neighbour separately, applying a different amenity test to each
· cites the specific SPD paragraph number for both the character test and the amenity test within the same report (e.g. Par. 14.34 and Par. 14.24)
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a genuinely separate, independently-numbered character-harm reason and neighbour-amenity-harm reason on every refusal, not one merged ground
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the attached neighbour and the non-attached neighbour assessed as two distinct amenity relationships within the same report
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact SPD paragraph number cited for each of the character and amenity tests separately
“the proposed hip-to-gable extension would unbalance the pair of hip-roofed, semi-detached dwellings and, together with its excessive size… would be an overly dominant and incongruous addition in relation to both the host property and the attached neighbouring property”
23/0098/HSE
“The design guidance (Par. 14.24) further states that two-storey rear extensions which are closer than 2 metres to a neighbouring boundary and project more than 3 metres in depth are not normally considered acceptable”
23/0098/HSE
Measured from 152 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 152 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–25.[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, 2022–25. · 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 152 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.