Natasha Campbell.
Last recorded decision Dec 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 87% across 228 decided planning applications, spanning 26 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×.
Campbell's mostly-approval caseload of garage conversions and extensions gives unusually granular attention to the exact WINDOW TYPE on a neighbouring property (obscure-glazed kitchen/bathroom vs a habitable-room window) when assessing overlooking, rather than a blanket privacy judgement based on distance alone. She is also willing to note explicitly where a scheme fails a guidance threshold on paper but still proceeds to approval on balance, naming the specific non-compliance rather than glossing over it.
· classifies each neighbouring window by its actual TYPE (obscure-glazed bathroom vs habitable-room window) before reaching an overlooking conclusion, not distance alone
· names a specific guidance non-compliance explicitly even where the overall recommendation is still approval, rather than omitting the conflict
· distinguishes a stepped/L-shaped rear building line from a simple flat rear wall when calculating the effective projection distance to a boundary
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the actual type of each neighbouring window (obscure-glazed non-habitable vs clear habitable-room glazing) before drawing an overlooking conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an explicit statement of any named guidance non-compliance even in a report that ultimately recommends approval
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the effective projection distance from a stepped or L-shaped rear building line, not the depth from the nearest wall alone
“The side windows at No. 3 is for a garage, an obscure-glazed window for a kitchen/bathroom therefore not a habitable room, and a conservatory to the rear with many windows”
22/0006/HSE
“although arguably at odds with the Guidance pursuant to Policy DM01 - relevant material considerations suggest that the application should be considered positively”
22/0179/192
Measured from 127 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 127 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 26 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–23.[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, 2021–23. · 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 127 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.