Development Intent
AtlasBarnetOfficersRadhika Bedi
Planning Atlas›Barnet›Radhika Bedi
Case officer · Barnet Planning

Radhika Bedi.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 78% across 754 decided planning applications, spanning 27 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer754 decisions78% 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 →
754
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%79%202080%202172%202283%202377%202479%202567%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate78% · 63rd 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 reports248 officer reports parsed
13%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
13%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
4%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
49%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Barnet's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Barnet reports. Attention, not stance.

Privacy & overlooking
1.25× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
1.25× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.23× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.16× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.06× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Bedi's reports mix householder extensions with a heavy load of Certificate-of-Lawfulness roof extensions, and her Lawful/Unlawful determinations methodically state the volumetric increase of each dormer element separately before summing to the permitted development ceiling. On refusals her prose is unusually specific about which side of an extension is measured against which neighbour ('4 metres on the right-hand side... 3.5 metres on the left-hand side'), distinguishing the two flanks rather than giving one blended verdict.

Observable habits

· states each dormer/hip-to-gable element's own volumetric contribution separately before summing to the 40/50 cubic metre GPDO ceiling

· assesses a rear extension's two flanks against two different neighbours separately rather than giving one combined amenity verdict

· cites the specific SPD paragraph number (e.g. 14.21) alongside the acceptable-depth figure it sets, not just the figure itself

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the itemised cubic-metre contribution of each individual roof element before confirming the GPDO volume total is within the permitted development limit

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: separate depth/amenity figures for each flank of an extension against its own distinct neighbour, not a single averaged figure

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a demolished or replaced structure on a backland site was itself lawfully established before assessing the new scheme's principle

Assigned Radhika Bedi on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“The total of the proposed hip to gable and rear dormer in this application will create a total volume increase of 47.28m3”

20/0023/192

“the proposal would replace an existing historic extension of the same depth - for which planning permission was not originally granted”

20/1307/HSE

Measured from 248 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 248 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DM01Protecting Barnet’s character and amenity Page
108 times cited
CS NPPF
104 times cited
CS1 arnet’s place shaping strategy – protection,
104 times cited
CS5 rotecting and enhancing Barnet’s character
90 times cited
DM02Development standards Page
27 times cited
DM06Barnet’s heritage and conservation Page
9 times cited
CS4Providing quality homes and housing choice in Barnet
9 times cited
CS14Dealing with our waste
9 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
111
76%
80
79%
72
76%
69
86%
68
72%
44
90%
36
63%
33
90%
24
81%
23
70%
18
73%
18
67%
17
88%
17
60%
17
82%
15
82%
15
69%
14
69%
13
67%
12
67%
11
73%
11
82%
6
100%
4
100%
3
100%
2
0%
1
100%
111
76%
80
79%
72
76%
Show all 27 rows
69
86%
68
72%
44
90%
36
63%
33
90%
24
81%
23
70%
18
73%
18
67%
17
88%
17
60%
17
82%
15
82%
15
69%
14
69%
13
67%
12
67%
11
73%
11
82%
6
100%
4
100%
3
100%
2
0%
1
100%

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
26/1237/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2026-05-28
26/1996/HSE
Householder Application
—
2026-05-28
26/1237/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2026-05-28
26/1996/HSE
Householder Application
—
2026-05-28
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 754 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. John Rowan & Partners
2. Great Plans
3. UPP Architects + Town Planners
4. Detailed Planning Ltd
At a glance
OfficerRadhika Bedi
BoroughBarnet
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications754 (2020–26)
Approval rate78%
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, 2020–26. · 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]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 248 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.