Jeremiah Ayerh.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 74% across 606 decided planning applications, spanning 16 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 Enfield reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Ayerh writes checklist-narrative reports and is a consistent precedent-comparator: for schemes that exceed DMD11's 3m depth guideline he does not simply cite it as a bright-line failure but names two or three specific comparator addresses on the same street with similarly larger extensions, using 'when viewed within the wider context' as his recurring framing before concluding no harm.
· names two or three specific comparator addresses with similarly non-compliant extension depths as evidence the wider street context makes a scheme acceptable, using the phrase 'when viewed within the wider context'
· checks BOTH the ground-floor 45-degree line and separate depth criteria for each affected neighbour individually within the same report
· for crossover/hardstanding applications, runs an explicit Google Maps Street search as evidence of existing parking demand before concluding on highway-safety objections
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: two or three specific comparator addresses on the same street with similarly larger extensions, used to justify a DMD11 depth exceedance 'within the wider context'
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the 45-degree line and the depth criterion checked separately for EACH affected neighbour, not a single blended conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an explicit Google Maps Street search of existing parking demand before drawing a highway-safety conclusion on a crossover application
“The proposed rear extension would exceed the depth requirement listed within Policy DMD 11 where it states that rear extensions should not exceed 3m in depth beyond the original rear wall in the case of terraced and semidetached properties. However, when viewed within the wider context there are similar larger rear extensions seen at Nos. 54, 103 Kingsfield Drive given the existing examples seen in existence within the vicinity of the area, the proposed single storey wrap around extension would not result in harm caused to the character of the area”
23/03522/HOU
“Upon further assessment, from carrying out a Google Maps Street search, there currently appears of be a high demand for off street parking with many vehicles utilizing the off-street parking-controlled parking zones, seen along Vicars Moor Lane”
23/03787/FUL
Measured from 163 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.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 163 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 16 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 Enfield 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 Enfield 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 163 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.