Daniel Wieder.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 73% across 366 decided planning applications, spanning 28 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×.
Wieder's caseload of extensions and roof alterations is notable for treating a full re-clad/re-roofed 'replacement' of an existing extension as its own distinct assessment category — weighing the change in MATERIALS (glazed conservatory to rendered wall) as a genuine visual-improvement factor, not just measuring the new footprint against the old. He also consults Tree Officers explicitly wherever protected trees sit near a boundary, citing BS5837:2012 by name.
· treats a material-composition CHANGE (e.g. glazed conservatory replaced by rendered wall) as its own positive visual-improvement factor distinct from the size comparison
· cites BS5837:2012 by name when protected trees sit near a construction boundary, requiring a tree protection plan as a pre-commencement condition
· compares a proposed extension's depth to the EXISTING structure it replaces on the same footprint, not to a generic guidance figure alone
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed replacement improves the MATERIAL composition of an existing extension (not just matches or exceeds its size)
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a BS5837:2012-compliant tree protection plan as a pre-commencement condition wherever protected trees sit near the construction boundary
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the depth of the EXISTING structure being replaced on the same footprint, as the direct comparator rather than a generic guidance figure
“the replacement of the totally glazed conservatory with a white rendered wall on the East flank and dual pitched tiled roof, serves to improve the relationship and consistency of the extensions form, scale and style with the original building”
21/1048/HSE
“a tree protection plan must be provided as a pre-commencement condition in order to prevent harm from construction activities within in the tree root protection area… in accordance with BS5837:2012”
22/0020/HSE
Measured from 122 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 122 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 28 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 122 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.