Development Intent
AtlasBarnetOfficersHarvey Penn
Case officer · Barnet Planning

Harvey Penn.

Last recorded decision Dec 2023 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 85% across 97 decided planning applications, spanning 21 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer97 decisions85% 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 →
97
Applications
2022–23
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%86%202380%2024
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate85% · 27th 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 reports59 officer reports parsed
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
5%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
42%
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.

Trees & landscape
1.35× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.02× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.98× borough avg
Character & heritage
0.8× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
0.69× borough avg

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

Assigned Harvey Penn 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

Russell Grove is largely characterised by open frontages serving driveways. Where front boundary treatments exist, they largely comprise dwarf brickwalls

23/0834/HSE

No supporting tree information in accordance with BS5837:2012 has been submitted and the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal can be installed without causing significant harm to the important street tree

23/0834/HSE

Measured from 59 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 59 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

CS NPPF
26 times cited
CS1 arnet’s place shaping strategy – protection,
26 times cited
CS5 rotecting and enhancing Barnet’s character
26 times cited
DM01Protecting Barnet’s character and amenity Page
2 times cited
DM02Development standards Page
2 times cited
DM17Travel Impact and Parking Standards
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–23.[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
23/4083/HSE
Householder Application
Refused
2024-03-18
23/3882/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2024-03-06
23/4083/HSE
Householder Application
Refused
2024-03-18
23/3882/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2024-03-06
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 97 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. John Rowan & Partners
2. Shah Designs Limited
3. Adara
4. NewT design&build
At a glance
OfficerHarvey Penn
BoroughBarnet
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications97 (2022–23)
Approval rate85%
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, 2022–23. · 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 59 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.