Tabitha Hannam.
Recently active — last recorded decision Sep 2025
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 85% across 133 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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×.
Hannam's reports cover a spread of extensions, GPDO Certificate-of-Lawfulness cases and retrospective (RCU) applications, and she is unusually explicit about REJECTING a 'precedent' argument raised by objectors — stating directly that an approval 'would not represent a precedent which must presuppose the outcome' for future applications. Her refusals on street-scene grounds lean on the specific concept of 'established building lines' as a named, testable feature rather than a general character judgement.
· directly rejects objector 'this will set a precedent' arguments in the response-to-consultation section, stating each case is determined on its own merits
· frames street-scene harm around disruption to 'established building lines' as its own named, testable concept
· cites case law (Arnold v Secretary of State) when applying the GPDO 'extension on an extension' test to rear projections beyond an existing rear wall
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a scheme genuinely disrupts an 'established building line' as its own testable feature of the street, distinct from a general character judgement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a direct rebuttal to any objector 'precedent' argument, confirming each application is determined on its own merits
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the GPDO 'extension on an extension' case-law test applies where a rear wall has already been extended historically
“it would not represent a precedent which must presuppose the outcome”
24/2199/HSE
“the proposal would be considered as an extension on an extension and paragraph j(a) of the legislation would apply”
24/2171/192
Measured from 147 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 147 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–25.[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, 2024–25. · 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 147 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.