Mark Heaney.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 71% across 133 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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×.
Heaney handles multi-unit conversion/extension schemes in the 2025-era checklist format and is willing to conclude that an internal consultee's objection (e.g. SuDS) does not justify refusal where the harm it flags can be resolved by a pre-commencement condition, stating that conclusion explicitly rather than silently overriding the objection.
· explicitly states that an internal consultee objection (e.g. SuDS/drainage) 'could not be justified' as a refusal ground where the concern is addressable by a pre-commencement condition, rather than silently discounting it
· measures a scheme's shortfall against a specific separation-distance policy (DMD10) but reasons through internal layout/orientation to find the shortfall acceptable in the particular circumstances
· for stacking/upward-extension schemes, checks each unit's GIA against its balcony size and depth individually rather than an aggregate space-standards statement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an internal consultee's objection (e.g. SuDS) can genuinely be resolved by a pre-commencement condition, explicitly concluding a refusal on that ground 'could not be justified' if so
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a DMD10 separation-distance shortfall is actually harmful given the specific internal layout and orientation of the rooms involved, not the raw distance figure alone
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each proposed unit's GIA, balcony size and depth checked individually against the London Plan minimum standards
“Whilst this objection has been noted, the measures required to make this element of the proposal acceptable could be addressed via a pre-commencement planning condition as the development is not located in a Flood Risk Area and is subject to a low surface water flood risk. As such a refusal on these grounds could not be justified”
25/00445/FUL
“The development would be slightly below the required separation distance required by DMD policy 10. However, given the internal layout and orientation that the building would have in that its rear bedrooms and communal stairwell would be located on its south side. It is not considered there would be any unacceptable overlooking or impact on privacy to these flats”
25/00445/FUL
Measured from 107 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 107 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[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, 2025–26. · 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 107 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.