Development Intent
AtlasBarnetOfficersLucia Devon
Planning Atlas›Barnet›Lucia Devon
Case officer · Barnet Planning

Lucia Devon.

Last recorded decision Sep 2021 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 76% across 199 decided planning applications, spanning 21 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer199 decisions76% 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 →
199
Applications
2020–21
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%80%202073%2021
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate76% · 64th 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 reports58 officer reports parsed
13%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
25%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
19%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
52%
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.

Bulk & massing
2.53× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.78× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.24× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.23× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
1.13× borough avg

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

Assigned Lucia Devon 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

“a distance of 29 metres would be retained between the application property and front facing properties which accords with the required distance of 21 metres that should be retained between facing habitable room windows”

20/0046/HSE

“The total width of the original dwelling is 6.47m and therefore, the extension would accord with the SPD guidance in that it would measure less than half the width of the original dwelling”

20/0046/HSE

Measured from 58 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 58 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

CS NPPF
53 times cited
CS1 arnet’s place shaping strategy – protection,
53 times cited
CS5 rotecting and enhancing Barnet’s character
53 times cited
DM01Protecting Barnet’s character and amenity Page
40 times cited
DM02Development standards Page
37 times cited
CS9Enlargement of School Facilities CS10 DM
2 times cited
CS13Ensuring the efficient use of natural resources
1 times cited
1.1
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
39
87%
24
68%
24
74%
23
62%
14
93%
10
20%
8
71%
7
71%
7
86%
7
86%
6
100%
6
83%
6
100%
4
50%
3
100%
3
100%
3
33%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
39
87%
24
68%
24
74%
Show all 21 rows
23
62%
14
93%
10
20%
8
71%
7
71%
7
86%
7
86%
6
100%
6
83%
6
100%
4
50%
3
100%
3
100%
3
33%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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
21/3340/FUL
Full Application
Refused
2021-12-03
21/4357/RCU
Retention/Continued Use
Refused
2021-11-02
21/3340/FUL
Full Application
Refused
2021-12-03
21/4357/RCU
Retention/Continued Use
Refused
2021-11-02
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 199 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. UPP - Urban Planning Practice
2. Harlequin Group
3. Resi
4. Town & Country Planning Limited
At a glance
OfficerLucia Devon
BoroughBarnet
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications199 (2020–21)
Approval rate76%
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, 2020–21. · 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 58 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.