Ismail Ameen.
Last recorded decision Sep 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 88% across 172 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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×.
Ameen's reports are almost exclusively straightforward householder approvals (rear extensions, garage conversions), and his prose is distinctively terse and formulaic compared to colleagues — consistently working through 'street scene', 'no.X' and 'no.Y' neighbour headings in the same fixed order report after report, rarely departing from that structure even where a scheme has unusual features.
· works through a fixed, repeated report structure (street scene, then each named neighbour in turn) with minimal deviation across reports
· cites the specific gap in metres between an extension and each named neighbouring flank wall as the sole amenity test, rather than a broader qualitative description
· confirms garage-to-habitable-room conversions retain adequate off-street parking as a standalone check before any character assessment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise metre gap between a proposed extension and each individually named neighbouring flank wall
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: confirmation that a garage conversion retains adequate off-street parking on the existing hardstanding before any further assessment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposed extension aligns with or exceeds an established half-width rear projection at the host property
“there is a gap of 1.8m between the proposed rear extension and the flank wall of no. 15”
23/0247/HSE
“there is space available for parking on the existing front hardstanding at the applicant site, and accordingly the proposal would comply with policy DM17”
23/0175/HSE
Measured from 136 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 136 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–24.[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, 2022–24. · 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 136 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.