Development Intent
AtlasBarnetOfficersJack Wride
Planning Atlas›Barnet›Jack Wride
Case officer · Barnet Planning

Jack Wride.

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

A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 65% across 119 decided planning applications, spanning 17 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer119 decisions65% 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 →
119
Applications
2020–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%54%202069%202174%2022
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate65% · 77th 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 reports40 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
33%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
66%
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.

Flooding & drainage
2.37× borough avg
Transport & parking
2.09× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
2.06× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.21× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
0.96× borough avg

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

Assigned Jack Wride 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

“the majority of this depth is in-fill development with 1.75m being beyond the established building line”

20/0738/HSE

“while contrary to the local plan, the scheme is considered to be, on balance, acceptable”

20/0738/HSE

Measured from 40 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 40 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

CS1 arnet’s place shaping strategy – protection,
25 times cited
CS NPPF
22 times cited
CS5 rotecting and enhancing Barnet’s character
22 times cited
DM01Protecting Barnet’s character and amenity Page
19 times cited
DM02Development standards Page
9 times cited
DM17Travel Impact and Parking Standards
9 times cited
CS9Enlargement of School Facilities CS10 DM
6 times cited
DM04Environmental Considerations for
4 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
22
88%
20
53%
18
54%
14
62%
13
60%
12
64%
5
40%
2
50%
2
0%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%
22
88%
20
53%
18
54%
Show all 17 rows
14
62%
13
60%
12
64%
5
40%
2
50%
2
0%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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
20/3941/FUL
Full Application
Withdrawn
2023-03-20
20/1617/FUL
Full Application
No determination
2022-12-07
20/3941/FUL
Full Application
Withdrawn
2023-03-20
20/1617/FUL
Full Application
No determination
2022-12-07
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 119 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. EA Town Planning Ltd
2. Eyal Moran Architects Ltd
3. Cadoo Limited
4. MD Designs
At a glance
OfficerJack Wride
BoroughBarnet
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications119 (2020–22)
Approval rate65%
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, 2020–22. · 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 40 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.