Keshni Patel-Rayani.
Last recorded decision May 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 78% across 233 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×.
Patel-Rayani's approvals-heavy caseload of detached-property extensions consistently invokes Tree Officer arboricultural guidance by document name (Arboricultural Association Guidance Note 12) as a specific attached condition rather than a generic tree-protection clause, and she pays close attention to whether a retained gap between two properties is preserved even as an extension's depth is reduced.
· cites specific arboricultural guidance documents by name and number (Arb Association Guidance Note 12) as the basis for a tree-protection condition, not a generic clause
· confirms a specific retained gap in metres between neighbouring properties is preserved even where an extension's overall depth changes
· requires permeable materials for new hardstanding/patio areas explicitly tied to a named tree-root protection rationale
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a named, numbered arboricultural guidance document (not a generic clause) as the basis for tree-protection conditions
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact retained gap in metres between neighbouring properties, confirmed preserved through any design amendment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: permeable materials for hardstanding specifically tied to a tree-root protection rationale, not a general drainage concern
“the proposed development is set back from the neighbouring boundary at 6 Weymouth Ave this, coupled with the presence of existing hardstanding, is likely to reduce risk to roots situated in the vicinity”
23/0118/HSE
“The level changes associated with the proposal… shall be implemented in full accordance with Arboricultural Association Guidance Note 12: THE USE OF CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEMS NEAR TREES”
23/0118/HSE
Measured from 82 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 82 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–24.[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, 2021–24. · 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 82 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.