Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersAndrew Parker
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Andrew Parker
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Andrew Parker.

Recently active — last recorded decision May 2025

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 58% across 293 decided planning applications, spanning 32 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer293 decisions58% 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 →
293
Applications
2020–25
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%56%202056%202172%202253%202348%202473%2025
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate58% · 55th 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 reports150 officer reports parsed
36%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
14%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
6%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
79%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Enfield's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Enfield reports. Attention, not stance.

Noise & disturbance
1.42× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.32× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
1.32× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.19× borough avg
Character & heritage
0.93× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Parker writes narrative reports on major/committee-level schemes and specifically cross-checks the planning history for previously imposed conditions that were never discharged (e.g. tree-protection foundation details), treating an undischarged condition on a related earlier permission as live evidence bearing on the current scheme.

Observable habits

· checks whether a condition imposed on an earlier related permission was actually complied with, using non-compliance as evidence against the current scheme

· identifies council-owned street trees specifically as a public amenity asset warranting protection independent of any TPO designation

· runs full S106/CIL affordable-housing and education-contribution tests even where the ultimate conclusion is refusal on design grounds

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether conditions imposed on an earlier related permission on the same site were actually discharged, using any shortfall as evidence for the current assessment

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether council-owned trees on the highway verge, not just TPO trees, would be affected by the works

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the full S106/CIL contribution calculation, run through even where the recommendation is ultimately refusal

Assigned Andrew Parker 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

“Planning application ref15/02484/HOU was refused as the proposed single-storey side and rear extension would significantly harm the roots of trees located on the highways. A subsequent planning application for a side and rear extension was approved subject to a condition 5”

20/00125/HOU

“6.11 Arboricultural Officers have previously identified that there are several significant trees located on the highways owned verge directly adjacent to the proposed development area. 6.12 These trees are local authority owned and are of significant public amenity value”

20/00125/HOU

Measured from 150 published Enfield 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 150 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D3
4 times cited
SI 12
4 times cited
D1
3 times cited
D4
3 times cited
D5
3 times cited
D6
3 times cited
SI 13
3 times cited
DMD 11
3 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
26
59%
19
68%
16
67%
15
47%
15
53%
14
46%
14
38%
13
54%
11
70%
11
55%
11
56%
10
50%
10
89%
10
63%
9
50%
9
75%
9
89%
8
50%
7
57%
7
71%
6
67%
6
33%
5
60%
5
100%
4
67%
4
0%
4
75%
4
25%
4
33%
3
50%
2
50%
2
50%
26
59%
19
68%
16
67%
Show all 32 rows
15
47%
15
53%
14
46%
14
38%
13
54%
11
70%
11
55%
11
56%
10
50%
10
89%
10
63%
9
50%
9
75%
9
89%
8
50%
7
57%
7
71%
6
67%
6
33%
5
60%
5
100%
4
67%
4
0%
4
75%
4
25%
4
33%
3
50%
2
50%
2
50%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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
25/01484/FUL
Full
Refused
2025-07-23
25/01647/FUL
Full
Withdrawn
2025-07-17
25/01484/FUL
Full
Refused
2025-07-23
25/01647/FUL
Full
Withdrawn
2025-07-17
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 293 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. ADP LONDON
2. Redwoods Projects
3. Architectural Design London
4. PAD Architectural Consultants
At a glance
OfficerAndrew Parker
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications293 (2020–25)
Approval rate58%
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, 2020–25. · 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]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 150 published Enfield 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.