Emily Bell.
Last recorded decision Sep 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 81% across 594 decided planning applications, spanning 26 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×.
Bell handles a wide mix of householder extensions, Certificate-of-Lawfulness applications and Section 191 existing-use certificates, and her Section 191 assessments are unusually forensic about documentary evidence — enumerating tenancy agreements, utility bills and enforcement case references by date before reaching a balance-of-probability conclusion, rather than summarising the evidence base in general terms. On design assessments she is willing to require a scheme be physically reduced (removing a hip-to-gable element entirely) during the application's life rather than simply refusing or approving as submitted.
· enumerates the underlying documentary evidence for a Certificate of Lawfulness (tenancy agreements, utility bills, enforcement references) by exact date before reaching a balance-of-probability conclusion
· requires whole elements of a scheme (e.g. a hip-to-gable roof extension) to be removed entirely during the application's lifetime rather than merely reduced in scale
· cross-references a live parallel enforcement case number when assessing a Section 191 application on the same site
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: dated documentary evidence (tenancy agreements, utility bills) covering the full four-year period required to establish a Section 191 certificate on balance of probability
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a hip-to-gable extension would form an overbearing wall on a prominent corner plot, not just whether it unbalances a semi-detached pair
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed hardstanding retains a planted strip between vehicular and pedestrian access per the Residential Design Guidance
“On the balance of probability and based on the information that has been provided, the LPA considers that the application site has not been used as a studio flat (C3) continuously for more than four years”
20/0064/191
“throughout the lifetime of the application it was requested that the hip to gable element of the proposed development be removed”
20/0410/HSE
Measured from 191 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 191 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 26 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–24.[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, 2020–24. · 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 191 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.