Jade Gillespie.
Last recorded decision Oct 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 79% across 380 decided planning applications, spanning 28 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×.
Gillespie's caseload is dominated by Certificate-of-Lawfulness (Section 192) outbuilding cases and Prior Notification (PNH) householder extensions, and unlike most of her Barnet colleagues she reaches a meaningfully high refusal/unlawful rate. Her outbuilding assessments test 'incidental use' scale directly against precedent from the SAME site's own prior appeal history when one exists, rather than treating each application as if starting fresh, and she is willing to distinguish two near-identical outbuildings on the same site by their precise footprint difference alone.
· tests an outbuilding's 'incidental to the enjoyment of the house' status by direct footprint comparison to the SAME site's own prior appeal decisions, not just general precedent
· distinguishes two near-identical schemes on one site purely by their footprint delta (e.g. 83.40 sqm vs 61.20 sqm) when a prior appeal on the smaller version was allowed
· cites Section 55/57 and 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act by number when reaching an Unlawful determination, rather than paraphrasing the statutory basis
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the SAME site's own prior appeal history on a near-identical outbuilding, used as the direct precedent rather than borough-wide comparables
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the applicant's own submitted measurements match what is actually shown on the plans, flagging PNH refusals specifically on that discrepancy
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact 0.5 metre 'significant gap' threshold Barnet applies between an outbuilding and the main dwelling under Class E
“The appeal for 19/1872/192 was dismissed as the proposed uses of a study, games room and and seating area could not be deemed lawful within an outbuilding that measured 83.40 sqm”
20/1335/192
“The applicant has failed to provide accurate information to assess the proposed eaves height and maximum height of the of the rear extension”
20/0470/PNH
Measured from 184 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 184 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 28 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[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, 2020–23. · 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 184 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.