Development Intent
AtlasBarnetOfficersShay Bugler
Case officer · Barnet Planning

Shay Bugler.

Last recorded decision May 2023 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 74% across 41 decided planning applications, spanning 17 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer41 decisions74% 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 →
41
Applications
2020–23
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%100%202085%202120%202277%202350%2024100%2025
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate74% · 67th 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 Shay Bugler'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 Shay Bugler decided — 7 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

DM01Protecting Barnet’s character and amenity PageBarnet plan
7 times cited
CS5 rotecting and enhancing Barnet’s characterBarnet plan
6 times cited
DM04Environmental Considerations forBarnet plan
6 times cited
CS1 arnet’s place shaping strategy – protection,Barnet plan
5 times cited
NPPFNPPF
5 times cited
CS7Enhancing and protecting Barnet’s open spacesBarnet plan
5 times cited
DM17Travel Impact and Parking StandardsBarnet plan
5 times cited
CS13Ensuring the efficient use of natural resourcesBarnet plan
5 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
21/5626/FUL
Full Application
Approved
2025-12-08
22/5485/FUL
Full Application
Approved
2025-09-17
21/5626/FUL
Full Application
Approved
2025-12-08
22/5485/FUL
Full Application
Approved
2025-09-17
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 41 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Apcar Smith Planning
2. Andrew Scott Associates Architects
3. Drawing and Planning Ltd
4. UPP Architects + Town Planners
At a glance
OfficerShay Bugler
BoroughBarnet
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications41 (2020–23)
Approval rate74%
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, 2020–23. · 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.