Development Intent
AtlasBarnetOfficersOlivia Becci
Planning Atlas›Barnet›Olivia Becci
Case officer · Barnet Planning

Olivia Becci.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 74% across 438 decided planning applications, spanning 26 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer438 decisions74% 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 →
438
Applications
2021–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%92%202182%202280%202376%202467%202560%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate74% · 68th 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 reports99 officer reports parsed
—
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
—
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
10%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
50%
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.

Noise & disturbance
1.56× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.42× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.39× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.24× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.24× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Becci's near-entirely-approval caseload of rear extensions and raised patios pays close attention to sloping-garden topography, treating raised platforms as a direct response to land levels rather than an independent height feature, and consistently checks whether a scheme would repeat an objection already raised and resolved on a DIFFERENT but related application on the same site.

Observable habits

· treats a raised patio/platform's height as a direct function of sloping garden topography, not an independent feature to assess against a flat-ground baseline

· cross-checks whether a condition attached to an earlier, related permission on the same site (e.g. a no-extension covenant) constrains the current application

· cites the exact width of a privacy screen fence in metres as its own mitigating condition rather than a generic 'obscure glazing' fix

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a raised patio's height is proportionate to genuine garden slope, not an arbitrary elevation

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an earlier related permission on the same site carries a condition (e.g. no further extension) that constrains the current scheme

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific dimension of a privacy screen fence proposed as mitigation, not just its presence

Assigned Olivia Becci 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

“The land slopes down towards the end of the garden. All the properties along this side to the road benefit from raised platforms”

22/0874/HSE

“Notwithstanding the provisions of any development order made under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990… the building(s) hereby permitted shall not be extended in any manner whatsoever”

23/0039/HSE

Measured from 99 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 99 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

CS NPPF
65 times cited
CS1 arnet’s place shaping strategy – protection,
65 times cited
CS5 rotecting and enhancing Barnet’s character
61 times cited
DM01Protecting Barnet’s character and amenity Page
28 times cited
DM02Development standards Page
21 times cited
DM17Travel Impact and Parking Standards
9 times cited
DM06Barnet’s heritage and conservation Page
8 times cited
CS9Enlargement of School Facilities CS10 DM
6 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
49
93%
34
77%
32
79%
27
77%
27
68%
24
78%
24
65%
23
70%
21
81%
20
37%
18
64%
16
73%
16
62%
16
85%
16
79%
15
73%
14
100%
11
60%
10
70%
8
50%
6
60%
4
25%
2
100%
2
100%
2
50%
1
–
49
93%
34
77%
32
79%
Show all 26 rows
27
77%
27
68%
24
78%
24
65%
23
70%
21
81%
20
37%
18
64%
16
73%
16
62%
16
85%
16
79%
15
73%
14
100%
11
60%
10
70%
8
50%
6
60%
4
25%
2
100%
2
100%
2
50%
1
–

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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
26/1169/FUL
Full Application
Refused
2026-06-09
23/2587/FUL
Full Application
Approved
2026-06-08
26/1169/FUL
Full Application
Refused
2026-06-09
23/2587/FUL
Full Application
Approved
2026-06-08
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 438 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. John Rowan & Partners
2. UPP Architects + Town Planners
3. Dimensions- Planning&Architecture
4. EA Town Planning Ltd
At a glance
OfficerOlivia Becci
BoroughBarnet
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications438 (2021–26)
Approval rate74%
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, 2021–26. · 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 99 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.