Policy Political Committee Officers Agents & developers Viability Map Appeals

Case officer · Barnet Planning

Rebecca Murunga.

Last recorded decision May 2024 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 81% across 128 decided planning applications, spanning 23 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer128 decisions81% 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 →

128

Applications

2023–24

median, received → decision, 123 dated cases

Decided under delegated powers

signed off without going to committee — 128 levelled decisions

Delegation Gap →

Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average

Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →

What they decide — by application type

How they compare — Versus peers

Approval rate81% · 49th 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 reports33 officer reports parsed

—

Approves despite concerns

of approvals record a documented reservation

—

Negotiated approvals

approvals mentioning revisions/amendments

"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.

Flooding & drainage

2.77× borough avg

Daylight & sunlight

2.22× borough avg

Privacy & overlooking

1.97× borough avg

Bulk & massing

1.61× borough avg

Outlook & amenity

1.22× borough avg

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

Assigned Rebecca Murunga 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 revised plans propose a 3m deep extension and 3m deep patio, which is almost similar in design and scale to the existing development approved at No.28 Cherry Tree Road (19/0637/HSE)”

24/0053/HSE

“The concerns relating to the impact the proposal would have on foundations and structures of neighbouring properties, effects on ground water conditions, noise/vibration from excavation work and neighbouring site ground stability due to London Clay property are not considered a planning matter”

24/0053/HSE

Measured from 33 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 33 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

CS NPPF

33 times cited

CS1 arnet’s place shaping strategy – protection,

33 times cited

DM01Protecting Barnet’s character and amenity Page

31 times cited

CS5 rotecting and enhancing Barnet’s character

26 times cited

DM02Development standards Page

26 times cited

DM06Barnet’s heritage and conservation Page

2 times cited