Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersJohn Neal
Planning Atlas›Enfield›John Neal
Case officer · Enfield Planning

John Neal.

Recently active — last recorded decision Feb 2025

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 60% across 75 decided planning applications, spanning 17 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer75 decisions60% 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 →
75
Applications
2020–25
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%67%202365%202438%2025
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate60% · 50th 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 reports42 officer reports parsed
38%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
19%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
19%
"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.

Energy & sustainability
2.47× borough avg
Trees & landscape
2.14× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.59× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.51× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.23× borough avg

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

Assigned John Neal 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

“The existing building dates to July 1948 or after 5th March 2018 approximately 1966 from council records. Therefore, falls within the identified dates. b) On 5th March 2018 the building was in No. The subject building was used as a a use other than-- bank as confirmed by the planning history and historic Google Streetview”

22/02022/PRAB

“policy CP5 of the Core Strategy makes clear that the Council requires market housing that provides a specific ratio of 1 and 2 bed flats (20%), 2 bed houses (15%), 3 bed houses (45%) and 4+ bed houses (20%)”

22/04249/FUL

Measured from 42 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 42 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

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-l
8 times cited
CP21DELIVERING SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE
6 times cited
DMD 80
6 times cited
DMD3
5 times cited
DMD 45
5 times cited
DMD 68
5 times cited
DMD 37
5 times cited
CP2HOUSING SUPPLY AND LOCATIONS FOR NEW HOMES The Council will make provision to exceed the housing target of 3,950 new homes as set out in the
4 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
15
73%
10
80%
6
60%
6
83%
6
33%
6
83%
5
60%
4
67%
4
0%
3
67%
2
50%
2
50%
2
0%
1
0%
1
0%
1
100%
1
0%
15
73%
10
80%
6
60%
Show all 17 rows
6
83%
6
33%
6
83%
5
60%
4
67%
4
0%
3
67%
2
50%
2
50%
2
0%
1
0%
1
0%
1
100%
1
0%

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
24/04045/FUL
Full
Approved
2025-04-24
25/00329/FUL
Full
Approved
2025-04-24
24/04045/FUL
Full
Approved
2025-04-24
25/00329/FUL
Full
Approved
2025-04-24
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 75 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Scott & Sampson Architects
2. Eade Planning Ltd
3. CG Architects
4. MJP Planning Limited
At a glance
OfficerJohn Neal
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications75 (2020–25)
Approval rate60%
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 42 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.