Zakera Matin.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 59% across 524 decided planning applications, spanning 28 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×.
Matin runs a mixed caseload with a genuinely high refusal share for a Barnet officer, and her reasoning on backland/garden development is unusually explicit about distinguishing a cited comparable by its planning HISTORY rather than its present appearance ('that dwelling was granted permission under 14/07456/FUL for Change of use of office... not comparable... in principle'). On amenity space schemes she cites the specific SPD paragraph defining what counts as USABLE outdoor space, actively excluding driveways and hardstanding from the calculation rather than accepting the applicant's own figure.
· distinguishes a cited comparable precedent by its underlying PLANNING HISTORY (how it was originally permitted) rather than just its current built form
· actively recalculates 'usable' outdoor amenity space by excluding driveways, hardstanding and refuse areas per the SPD definition, rather than accepting the applicant's submitted figure
· frames backland refusals around disruption to the 'established spatial pattern of development' as a named test, distinct from a simple character-harm finding
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a cited comparable property's OWN planning history (not just its appearance) genuinely supports treating it as a precedent
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a recalculated usable-amenity-space figure that excludes hardstanding, driveways and refuse areas per the SPD definition
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific percentage increase over original volume for a Green Belt/MOL extension against the ~25-28% disproportionality threshold
“That dwelling was granted permission under 14/07456/FUL for Change of use of office to 1no. self-contained residential unit”
20/0037/FUL
“any extension consisting of 25% to 28% increase over and above the original volume is considered not to have adverse impact on the openness of green Belt”
20/0179/HSE
Measured from 174 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 174 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 28 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 174 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.