Vruti Parmar.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Barnet with an approval rate of 89% across 188 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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×.
Parmar's caseload includes extensions within the Grahame Park regeneration estate, and she is distinctively strict about enforcing no-extension covenants attached to the original estate consent, treating them as an absolute bar rather than a factor to weigh against design merit — refusing outright even where the physical scheme itself would otherwise be modest and acceptable.
· treats a no-extension covenant from an original estate consent as an absolute bar, refusing regardless of the physical scheme's own merit
· separately states BOTH a character-harm reason and a loss-of-amenity-space reason for refusal even where the covenant alone would be decisive
· cites the exact original consent reference and its condition wording verbatim when explaining why a site carries no extension rights
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a no-extension covenant on the original estate consent, quoted verbatim, treated as an absolute bar independent of design merit
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a SEPARATE loss-of-amenity-space finding stated in addition to the covenant breach, not relied on alone
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact original planning permission reference under which the no-extension condition was imposed
“Notwithstanding the provisions of any development order made under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990”
24/0001/HSE
“The proposed rear extension would result in the loss of part of the existing private garden and would fail to maintain the minimum prescribed standards for outdoor amenity space”
24/0001/HSE
Measured from 73 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 73 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[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, 2023–26. · 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 73 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.