Development Intent
AtlasBarnetOfficersTia Olivo
Planning Atlas›Barnet›Tia Olivo
Case officer · Barnet Planning

Tia Olivo.

Last recorded decision Aug 2022 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 87% across 178 decided planning applications, spanning 24 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer178 decisions87% 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 →
178
Applications
2020–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%85%202188%2022
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate87% · 22nd 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 reports30 officer reports parsed
—
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
—
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
17%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
55%
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.

Materials & detailing
1.88× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.43× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.1× borough avg
Character & heritage
0.97× borough avg
Trees & landscape
0.92× borough avg

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

Assigned Tia Olivo 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 reduction of overhand to 0.3m improves the appearance of the outbuilding significantly as this feature added significant bulk to the building”

22/0001/RCU

“It is built with a 0.5m distance maintained between the rear boundary and the side boundary”

22/0001/RCU

Measured from 30 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 30 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

CS NPPF
29 times cited
CS1 arnet’s place shaping strategy – protection,
29 times cited
CS5 rotecting and enhancing Barnet’s character
29 times cited
DM01Protecting Barnet’s character and amenity Page
24 times cited
DM02Development standards Page
24 times cited
DM06Barnet’s heritage and conservation Page
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
29
74%
22
95%
19
81%
16
93%
15
93%
15
92%
7
67%
7
86%
7
83%
5
80%
4
50%
4
100%
4
100%
4
75%
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
29
74%
22
95%
19
81%
Show all 24 rows
16
93%
15
93%
15
92%
7
67%
7
86%
7
83%
5
80%
4
50%
4
100%
4
100%
4
75%
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
3
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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
22/3358/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2022-12-08
22/0767/HSE
Householder Application
No determination
2022-12-07
22/3358/HSE
Householder Application
Approved
2022-12-08
22/0767/HSE
Householder Application
No determination
2022-12-07
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 178 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Domus Architects and Project Managers Ltd
2. Alan Cox Associates
3. John Perrin & Sons Ltd
4. CG Architects
At a glance
OfficerTia Olivo
BoroughBarnet
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications178 (2020–22)
Approval rate87%
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, 2020–22. · 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 30 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.