Bradley Carson.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 91% across 504 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×.
Carson's caseload skews toward more recent (2024) applications with a comparatively high refusal rate on both design and amenity grounds, and his prose repeatedly invokes case law by name when applying the GPDO 'extension on an extension' test, rather than relying solely on Barnet's own SPD language. He is notably explicit about weighing the precise recommended outdoor amenity area (e.g. '36.4m3' remaining) as a standalone pass/fail test, separate from the character and neighbour-amenity assessment.
· cites named case law (e.g. Arnold v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) when applying the GPDO 'extension on an extension' rule to rear projections
· tests remaining outdoor amenity space as a standalone numeric pass/fail figure separate from the character/amenity narrative
· explicitly distinguishes a refused prior scheme on the SAME site by exact dimension delta before assessing whether the current one repeats the same objection
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed rear extension is legally an 'extension on an extension' under the case-law test, not just whether it exceeds a raw depth figure
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise remaining outdoor amenity area in square metres as its own numeric threshold
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact dimensional difference between a currently refused scheme and any prior refused scheme on the same site
“represent a dominant and incongruous addition to the host site which would be out of keeping with the established character and appearance of the Green Lane street scene”
24/0223/FUL
“It is important to note that a very similar application (REF: 23/1428/HSE) at the site was REFUSED, dated 25 May 2023, as the proposal failed to comply with the adopted policies”
24/0553/HSE
Measured from 176 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 176 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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, 2021–26. · 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 176 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.