Tina Oliveira.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 84% across 666 decided planning applications, spanning 29 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×.
Oliveira's caseload is dominated by householder rear extensions and roof alterations resolved almost entirely in the applicant's favour, and her reasoning leans heavily on citing a named neighbouring property that already carries an identical or larger extension as the anchor for acceptability. She frequently restates the exact depth reduction made during the life of an application as the pivot point, and repeatedly frames patios/decks as subordinate to the primary extension rather than an independent feature requiring its own separate test.
· anchors acceptability on a single named comparable property with its own extension already in situ, cited by house number
· treats a raised patio/deck as subordinate to the extension it serves rather than assessing it as an independent structure
· restates the specific depth reduction achieved during the application's lifetime as the acceptability threshold ('depth of the proposed rear patio has been reduced from 2.00 to 1.00 metres')
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a directly comparable neighbouring extension, named by house number, to establish the acceptable depth baseline for a street
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a patio/deck is genuinely subordinate to (i.e. contained within the footprint of) the extension it adjoins
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise GPDO Class B volume figure against the 50 cubic metre semi-detached limit for roof extensions
“the depth of the proposed rear patio has been reduced from 2.00 to 1.00 metres to be contained within the footprint of the existing rear patio”
22/0202/HSE
“the proposed side extension will not be visible from the public realm and cannot be directly compared to an established pattern along the street”
22/0258/HSE
Measured from 259 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 259 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 29 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–26.[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, 2021–26. · 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 259 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.