Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersKarim El Houssami
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Karim El-Houssami.

Recently active — last recorded decision Dec 2024

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 78% across 65 decided planning applications, spanning 14 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer65 decisions78% 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 →
65
Applications
2024
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%76%202489%2025
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate78% · 22nd 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 reports39 officer reports parsed
88%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
5%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
70%
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.

Privacy & overlooking
2.88× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.63× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.58× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.55× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.33× borough avg

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

Assigned Karim El-Houssami 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 applicant was repeatedly contacted to give them the opportunity to submit revised drawings for the crossover to maintain a sufficient distance from the street tree. � 24/05/2024 � Initial email sent � 07/06/2024 � Follow up email sent � 12/06/2023 � Applicant was called by officer; no answer

24/00545/FUL

A Google Streetview survey of the surrounding area shows that multiple neighbouring properties have dropped kerbs connecting to off-street parking. Introducing one to number 88 would not impact the character of the area

24/00545/FUL

Measured from 39 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 39 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
26 times cited
DMD37
25 times cited
DMD59
5 times cited
DMD60
5 times cited
DMD61
5 times cited
DMD46
4 times cited
DMD12
3 times cited
D4
2 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024.[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
24/03837/HOU
Householder
Approved
2025-02-05
24/03860/FUL
Full
Approved
2025-02-05
24/03837/HOU
Householder
Approved
2025-02-05
24/03860/FUL
Full
Approved
2025-02-05
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 65 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Keegans
2. John Perrin & Sons Ltd
3. Aygul Boyraz LTD
4. Grangewood Joinery London Ltd
At a glance
OfficerKarim El-Houssami
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications65 (2024)
Approval rate78%
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, 2024. · 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 39 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.