Development Intent
AtlasBarnetOfficersGary Jackson
Planning Atlas›Barnet›Gary Jackson
Case officer · Barnet Planning

Gary Jackson.

Last recorded decision Jul 2022 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 83% across 31 decided planning applications, spanning 16 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer31 decisions83% 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 →
31
Applications
2021–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%83%2022100%2023
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate83% · 36th 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 reports48 officer reports parsed
—
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
—
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
41%
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.

Bulk & massing
1.5× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.28× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.12× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.07× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.02× borough avg

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

Assigned Gary Jackson 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

“10.3 of the residential design guidance states”

22/0098/HSE

“The rear infill element would be no more than the existing rear extension, it is therefore considered that the proposed development would not present any issues to the character”

22/0098/HSE

Measured from 48 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 48 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

CS NPPF
10 times cited
CS1 arnet’s place shaping strategy – protection,
10 times cited
CS5 rotecting and enhancing Barnet’s character
10 times cited
DM01Protecting Barnet’s character and amenity Page
6 times cited
DM02Development standards Page
6 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
6
67%
4
75%
3
100%
2
50%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
6
67%
4
75%
3
100%
Show all 16 rows
2
50%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–22.[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
22/1991/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2023-01-04
22/3230/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2022-12-07
22/1991/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2023-01-04
22/3230/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2022-12-07
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 31 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Icreate Designs Limited
2. DPA (London) Ltd
3. ME Architects
4. Terenure Consultancy Ltd
At a glance
OfficerGary Jackson
BoroughBarnet
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications31 (2021–22)
Approval rate83%
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, 2021–22. · 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 48 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.