Development Intent
AtlasBarnetOfficersAgnes Wanja
Planning Atlas›Barnet›Agnes Wanja
Case officer · Barnet Planning

Agnes Wanja.

Last recorded decision Aug 2020 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 83% across 67 decided planning applications, spanning 11 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer67 decisions83% approvalSave
Barnet · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
67
Applications
2020
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%88%20200%2021
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate83% · 41st of 85
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports

Not filled in yet — this needs at least 20 of Agnes Wanja's own officer reports parsed, and their reports haven't reached that threshold in the parsing run. It fills automatically as parsing progresses; nothing is estimated in its place.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies cited most on decision notices for applications Agnes Wanja decided — 34 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

CS1 arnet’s place shaping strategy – protection,Barnet plan
34 times cited
DM01Protecting Barnet’s character and amenity PageBarnet plan
34 times cited
NPPFNPPF
33 times cited
CS5 rotecting and enhancing Barnet’s characterBarnet plan
3 times cited
7.4Superseded
2 times cited
7.6Superseded
2 times cited
CS7Enhancing and protecting Barnet’s open spacesBarnet plan
2 times cited
7.21Superseded
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
19
89%
11
82%
10
78%
9
88%
6
83%
4
100%
2
100%
2
0%
2
0%
1
100%
1
100%
19
89%
11
82%
10
78%
Show all 11 rows
9
88%
6
83%
4
100%
2
100%
2
0%
2
0%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
20/0206/RCU
Retention/Continued Use
No determination
2022-12-07
20/0845/HSE
Householder Application
Refused
2021-06-03
20/0206/RCU
Retention/Continued Use
No determination
2022-12-07
20/0845/HSE
Householder Application
Refused
2021-06-03
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 67 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Alan Cox Associates
2. John Perrin & Sons Ltd
3. CG Architects
4. UPP - Urban Planning Practice
At a glance
OfficerAgnes Wanja
BoroughBarnet
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications67 (2020)
Approval rate83%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Barnet planning register and published decision notices, 2020. · methodology
  2. [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. [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. [4]Policy citations will be coded from officer reports against the adopted Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF — that parsing has not run for this borough yet.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.