Mansoor Cohen.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 64% across 373 decided planning applications, spanning 29 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×.
Cohen handles a comparatively high-value caseload including basement developments and resubmissions of previously-refused schemes, and he is distinctively deliberate about quoting a PRIOR officer's own committee-report reasoning verbatim when a resubmission replicates part of an earlier approved/refused scheme, using it as the basis for the current recommendation rather than reassessing from scratch.
· quotes a prior officer's own committee-report reasoning verbatim when the current application replicates elements of an earlier approved or refused scheme
· isolates which SPECIFIC elements of a resubmission differ from a previously refused scheme, assessing only the delta rather than the whole application afresh
· confirms no visual manifestation of an underground element (e.g. a basement) before concluding it raises no character concerns
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a prior officer's own written reasoning on an earlier related application, quoted verbatim and either endorsed or updated for the current scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: precisely which elements of a resubmission differ from a previously refused scheme, assessing only that delta
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: confirmation that an underground element (basement) has no visual manifestation at ground level before dismissing character concerns
“The following was stated in the officers report of 19/4726/HSE in relation to the single storey rear and side extension, creation of basement and front porch enclosure”
20/0224/HSE
“there would be no visual manifestation of the proposed basement that would raise concerns on character grounds”
20/0224/HSE
Measured from 95 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 95 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 29 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 95 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.