Rish Mehan.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 92% across 150 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×.
Mehan's caseload of dormer and roof-extension applications is notable for splitting the impact assessment into named 'Impact to Character' and 'Impact to Neighbouring Amenity' sub-headings even in short reports, and for explicitly framing an overlooking objection against the STANDARD relationship already existing elsewhere on the same property, rather than treating any new upper-floor window as automatically harmful.
· splits every assessment into separately headed 'Impact to Character' and 'Impact to Neighbouring Amenity' sections even in short reports
· benchmarks a new window's overlooking impact against the STANDARD relationship already existing elsewhere at the same property (e.g. an existing rear-wing window), rather than treating it in isolation
· explicitly states that construction-phase noise/disruption is not a material planning consideration when addressing objections
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a genuinely separate, independently headed character assessment and amenity assessment, not one merged narrative
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the STANDARD window relationship already existing elsewhere at the same property, used as the overlooking benchmark for a new opening
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a clear statement distinguishing construction-phase disruption objections from material planning considerations
“the impact is not considered to be inconsistent with the standard relationship with upper floor windows in the rear elevation in an urban environment - such as that which already exists with the window in the rear wing at first floor level”
22/1550/FUL
“The potential noise and disruption from carrying out the works is not a material planning consideration”
22/1550/FUL
Measured from 80 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 80 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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, 2022–26. · 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 80 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.