Erica Mason.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 72% across 316 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×.
Mason's caseload leans toward Prior Notification office-to-residential (PNO) change-of-use cases and larger commercial schemes, and her PNO refusals work systematically through EACH numbered GPDO criterion in turn (natural light, noise, flooding) rather than reaching a global conclusion, explicitly stating which sub-paragraph is not met. She is also unusually attentive to parking-permit restriction conditions as a standalone highways safeguard distinct from the physical scheme.
· works through each numbered GPDO Class O sub-criterion (natural light, flooding, noise) as its own explicit pass/fail test rather than a single combined judgement
· treats a parking-permit restriction condition (via S106) as a distinct highways safeguard, separate from the physical/design assessment of a scheme
· assesses external alterations proposed alongside a change-of-use application as INELIGIBLE under the same permitted-development class, requiring separate full planning permission
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each individual numbered GPDO Class O sub-criterion (natural light, noise, flood risk) assessed and stated as its own pass/fail, not a global verdict
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether external alterations bundled into a change-of-use application are actually covered by that permitted-development class, or require separate permission
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a formal S106 parking-permit restriction where a scheme lacks off-street provision, treated as its own distinct safeguard
“the changes cannot be facilitated under the Order - as there is no provision under Class O for external alterations - and are therefore not permitted”
21/0892/PNO
“The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking to restrict the access of future occupiers to residential parking permits, resulting in an increased demand for onstreet parking”
21/0892/PNO
Measured from 95 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 95 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 26 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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 95 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.