Development Intent
AtlasBarnetOfficersEdith Leung
Planning Atlas›Barnet›Edith Leung
Case officer · Barnet Planning

Edith Leung.

Recently active — last recorded decision Mar 2025

A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 52% across 93 decided planning applications, spanning 21 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer93 decisions52% approvalSave
Barnet · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
93
Applications
2020–25
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%0%202153%202452%2025
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate52% · 85th of 85
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports66 officer reports parsed
—
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
—
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
29%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
49%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Barnet's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Barnet reports. Attention, not stance.

Daylight & sunlight
2.14× borough avg
Transport & parking
2.14× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.68× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.27× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.15× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

Assigned Edith Leung on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“The applicant has not provided any supporting information to assess the impact on a street tree, a publicly owned asset of moderate to high amenity value, being the largest street tree in the local area”

22/0444/HSE

“the existing house is already situated in a very small plot, adding a side extension that extend beyond the front building line by 1.7 m would further exacerbate its cramped appearance”

22/0444/HSE

Measured from 66 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 66 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

CS NPPF
38 times cited
CS1 arnet’s place shaping strategy – protection,
37 times cited
CS5 rotecting and enhancing Barnet’s character
36 times cited
DM01Protecting Barnet’s character and amenity Page
30 times cited
DM17Travel Impact and Parking Standards
29 times cited
DM02Development standards Page
24 times cited
CS9Enlargement of School Facilities CS10 DM
23 times cited
CS4Providing quality homes and housing choice in Barnet
20 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
18
19%
10
78%
7
50%
5
80%
5
67%
5
40%
5
75%
5
100%
4
50%
4
67%
4
67%
3
33%
3
33%
3
0%
2
50%
2
50%
2
50%
2
100%
2
0%
1
0%
1
100%
18
19%
10
78%
7
50%
Show all 21 rows
5
80%
5
67%
5
40%
5
75%
5
100%
4
50%
4
67%
4
67%
3
33%
3
33%
3
0%
2
50%
2
50%
2
50%
2
100%
2
0%
1
0%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
25/0098/FUL
Full Application
Refused
2025-05-29
25/0434/RCU
Retention/Continued Use
Approved
2025-04-29
25/0098/FUL
Full Application
Refused
2025-05-29
25/0434/RCU
Retention/Continued Use
Approved
2025-04-29
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 93 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Henry Planning Ltd
2. UPP Architects + Town Planners
3. Freeths LLP
4. inspiredSPACE Architects
At a glance
OfficerEdith Leung
BoroughBarnet
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications93 (2020–25)
Approval rate52%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Barnet planning register and published decision notices, 2020–25. · methodology
  2. [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. [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. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 66 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.