Greta Norton.
Recently active — last recorded decision Sep 2025
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 84% across 319 decided planning applications, spanning 25 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×.
Norton's caseload of window replacements, dormer extensions and standard householder work is notable for treating window replacement schemes on blocks of flats with the same level of per-window sizing detail as a single dwelling, and for identifying a specific architectural TYPOLOGY of a street (e.g. 'triangular facade... a unique architectural design') as the reason a design that would be unusual elsewhere is contextually acceptable.
· specifies each individual window's exact width and height when assessing a multi-window replacement scheme, rather than describing the change generically
· identifies a distinctive local architectural typology unique to a street (e.g. triangular-facade houses) as the specific reason an otherwise-unusual design element is acceptable
· confirms a proposed dormer's width is precisely half the existing roof width as the acceptability threshold, not an approximate comparison
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact width and height of EACH individual window in a multi-window replacement scheme, not a generic description
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a street has a distinctive shared architectural typology that changes what counts as 'in character' for an unusual design element
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a precise half-width calculation for dormer extensions against the existing roof slope
“the dwellings have a unique architectural design with triangular shaped properties. Therefore, side dormers are the only option”
22/0016/HSE
“The width of the proposed dormers on either side are half the width of the existing roof”
22/0016/HSE
Measured from 117 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 117 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 25 rows
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.
- [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]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 117 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.