Kate Foster.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 84% across 231 decided planning applications, spanning 23 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×.
Foster's caseload includes a significant share of commercial/mixed-use reports (medical centres, shop units) alongside standard householder work, and she is notably diligent about tracking a site's full enforcement history by reference number and closure date before assessing a live application, rather than summarising it in passing. Her equality-and-access reasoning is also more substantive than most colleagues': she directly checks a stated accessibility justification against what the submitted plans actually show, rather than accepting the applicant's framing.
· tracks a site's enforcement history by exact reference number, nature of breach, and closure date before assessing the live application
· checks a stated accessibility/equalities justification directly against what the submitted plans show, flagging contradictions (e.g. a 'wheelchair access' porch shown with steps)
· treats amendments made mid-application to correct plan inaccuracies as a distinct assessment step, confirming the corrected version before proceeding
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the site's full enforcement case history by reference number and closure date, not just a general mention of past breaches
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a stated accessibility justification (e.g. wheelchair access) is actually shown as achievable on the submitted plans
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: confirmation that plan inaccuracies flagged during the application were genuinely corrected in the final amended set before assessment proceeds
“the previous enforcement investigations (ENF/01384/17, ENF/00034/18) found the former use of the outbuilding to be ancillary to the C3 use of the dwellinghouse”
23/0443/191
“Officers are satisfied that the proposal represents an accurate representation of the site, therefore for the purposes of assessing this application, the information is deemed to be accurate”
23/0360/FUL
Measured from 156 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 156 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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, 2022–26. · 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 156 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.