Refael Saffer.
Last recorded decision Jul 2024 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 80% across 227 decided planning applications, spanning 23 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×.
Saffer's caseload is almost entirely Prior Notification (PNH) single storey rear extensions, and his refusals are distinctively precise about historic mapping evidence — reviewing original OS/historic maps to establish whether a claimed 'original' rear projection genuinely predates the current extension, rather than accepting the applicant's stated baseline. He is also careful to distinguish civil/party-wall matters from planning considerations explicitly in nearly every response-to-consultation section.
· reviews historic mapping to independently verify whether a claimed 'original' rear projection genuinely existed, rather than accepting the applicant's stated baseline
· explicitly separates party-wall/civil matters from planning considerations in the response-to-consultation section of nearly every report
· tests the GPDO A.4(3) 'insufficient information' refusal ground specifically where submitted measurements don't match what's shown on plans
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: independent verification via historic mapping of whether a claimed 'original' rear wall projection genuinely predates the extension, not the applicant's own assertion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the applicant's stated dimensions match what is actually measurable on the submitted plans, as a standalone GPDO A.4(3) refusal ground
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a clear statement that party wall and access matters are civil, not planning, considerations
“Following a review of historical mapping, it was noted that the original building as it existed benefitted from a rear projection towards the boundary with no. 209 Squires Lane”
22/0010/PNH
“Party wall matters are private matters between neighbouring occupiers, and fall outside the scope of this application”
22/0104/HSE
Measured from 139 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 139 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–24.[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, 2021–24. · 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 139 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.