Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersAlex Johnson
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Alex Johnson
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Alex Johnson.

Last recorded decision Jul 2021 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 48% across 137 decided planning applications, spanning 12 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer137 decisions48% approvalSave
Enfield · 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 →
137
Applications
2020–21
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%47%202048%2021
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate48% · 60th of 63
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 Alex Johnson'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 Alex Johnson decided — 113 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

NPPFNPPF
49 times cited
CP30MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF THE BUILT AND OPEN ENVIRONMENT All developments and interventions in the public realm must be high quality and design-lEnfield plan
27 times cited
DMD8SPD / guidance
21 times cited
DMD37SPD / guidance
20 times cited
CP4HOUSING QUALITY New housingEnfield plan
11 times cited
7.4Superseded
10 times cited
DMD5SPD / guidance
9 times cited
DMD11SPD / guidance
8 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
18
56%
17
50%
16
57%
14
38%
14
54%
14
54%
11
55%
9
43%
7
43%
6
17%
6
33%
5
25%
18
56%
17
50%
16
57%
Show all 12 rows
14
38%
14
54%
14
54%
11
55%
9
43%
7
43%
6
17%
6
33%
5
25%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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
20/01013/FUL
Full
Refused
2021-11-19
21/02096/FUL
Full
Approved
2021-10-08
20/01013/FUL
Full
Refused
2021-11-19
21/02096/FUL
Full
Approved
2021-10-08
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 137 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. PAD Architectural Consultants
2. Design-Tect Design Associates
3. Lotus consultants limited
4. MD Designs
At a glance
OfficerAlex Johnson
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications137 (2020–21)
Approval rate48%
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 Enfield planning register and published decision notices, 2020–21. · 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 Enfield 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.