Will Collier.
Active — last recorded decision Dec 2025
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 61% across 276 decided planning applications, spanning 26 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×.
Collier's caseload includes larger, multi-element householder schemes (combined front/rear/roof works) and he consistently tracks how a scheme was AMENDED during its lifetime to reduce bulk — naming each specific design change (hipped roof instead of gable, removal of a dormer, dropped eaves heights) as its own listed mitigation, rather than describing the amended scheme only in its final form.
· lists each individual design change made during a scheme's lifetime (roof form swap, dormer removal, dropped eaves) as its own itemised mitigation, not a single 'amended' summary
· explains WHY a topographically staggered street has no consistent roofline, using that as the basis for tolerating height variation
· notes where boundary vegetation (trees, hedges) provides a genuine privacy buffer distinct from the built form itself
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each individual design change made during a scheme's life (roof form, dormer count, eaves height), itemised rather than summarised as a single amendment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a street's topography itself explains an inconsistent roofline, before treating height variation as a character concern
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether existing boundary vegetation genuinely functions as a privacy buffer, assessed separately from the built form
“amendments have helped to reduce the bulk of the scheme to an acceptable level through the introduction of hipped roof at the front instead of gable, removal of a rear dormer and dropping the eaves heights”
21/0104/HSE
“It is considered there is no consistent roofline height due to the topography of the street and range of building styles and heights within the vicinity”
21/0104/HSE
Measured from 96 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 96 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 26 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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, 2020–25. · 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 96 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.