Emily Palmer.
Last recorded decision Nov 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 81% across 148 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×.
Palmer's approvals-heavy caseload of extensions and garage conversions is notable for treating each affected neighbour as a fully separate mini-assessment with its own heading ('No. 6 Walfield Avenue', 'No. 10 Walfield Avenue') even where the impact is identical, rather than combining them. She also pays close attention to how a scheme changes the internal use mix of an outbuilding (gym/office/utility) as itself a planning-relevant detail, not just the physical envelope.
· gives each affected neighbour a fully separate named sub-heading even where the amenity conclusion is the same for both
· treats the internal USE mix proposed for an outbuilding (gym, office, utility) as its own planning-relevant detail worth stating precisely, not just the building envelope
· cites the specific added square-metreage delta to an existing extension/garage (e.g. '5 sqm') as the acceptability test rather than the total final size alone
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a fully separate, individually headed amenity assessment for each named neighbour, even when the outcome is identical
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise square-metre area ADDED to an existing structure, not just its final total size
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific internal use mix proposed for an outbuilding, treated as a planning-relevant detail in its own right
“the rear extension is proposing to add 1.96 sqm to the existing extension and creates a flush building line by extending out the splayed section”
22/0030/HSE
“No. 6 Walfield Avenue: Adjoining No.8… officers are satisfied that the proposed extension is considered acceptable”
22/0030/HSE
Measured from 135 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 135 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 26 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[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, 2020–23. · 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 135 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.