Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersJade Marshall
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Jade Marshall
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Jade Marshall.

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

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 66% across 45 decided planning applications, spanning 9 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer45 decisions66% 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 →
45
Applications
2021–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%75%202158%2022
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate66% · 45th 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 reports23 officer reports parsed
—
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
—
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
81%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
Assigned Jade Marshall 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

“1 Permission to use the dwellinghouse as a dwellinghouse has been granted only by virtue of Class M, N, P, PA or Q of Part 3 of this Schedule (changes of use)?”

21/03596/CEA

“(i) Encroachment? (ii) Party Walls? 15 Dwellinghouse? (Not flats) Yes � party wall Yes”

21/03596/CEA

Measured from 23 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 23 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4
2 times cited
DMD 14
2 times cited
DMD 83
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
9
89%
6
50%
6
50%
6
83%
6
17%
4
100%
3
100%
3
67%
2
50%
9
89%
6
50%
6
50%
Show all 9 rows
6
83%
6
17%
4
100%
3
100%
3
67%
2
50%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–22.[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
21/04747/PRA
New dwellings on detached block of flats
Approved
2022-07-28
22/00201/HOU
Householder
Approved
2022-03-17
21/04747/PRA
New dwellings on detached block of flats
Approved
2022-07-28
22/00201/HOU
Householder
Approved
2022-03-17
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 45 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Capital Architectural Design
2. Architectural Design Point Limited
3. P E Ottery Dip TP MRTPI
4. Studio Charrette
At a glance
OfficerJade Marshall
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications45 (2021–22)
Approval rate66%
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, 2021–22. · 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 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 23 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.