Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersMax Leonardo
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Max Leonardo
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Max Leonardo.

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

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 79% across 293 decided planning applications, spanning 12 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer293 decisions79% 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 →
293
Applications
2020–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%83%202074%202182%2022
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate79% · 19th 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 reports264 officer reports parsed
6%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
27%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
5%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
80%
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.

Daylight & sunlight
2.07× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
2.07× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.53× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
1.29× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.22× borough avg

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

How they reason — coded from their reports

Leonardo writes exceptionally detailed, numbered-paragraph reports that formally address neighbour objections point by point before folding each into the relevant substantive section, and applies DMD13's roof-dormer inset criteria (0.5-0.75m from ridge/eaves/sides) with millimetre-level precision, naming the exact shortfall on each dimension where a scheme fails it.

Observable habits

· opens with an explicit 'Objections' section that summarises each point raised and cross-references which later section of the report addresses it, rather than folding objections silently into the assessment

· tests roof dormers against DMD13's 0.5-0.75m inset requirement dimension by dimension (ridge, eaves, each side), stating the actual inset achieved against the required range

· separates 'Character and Design Impact' from 'Neighbouring Amenity' as distinct headed sections even for straightforward householder schemes

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the dormer's actual inset from ridge, eaves and each side of the roof measured against DMD13's 0.5-0.75m range, dimension by dimension

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: each neighbour objection point restated and cross-referenced to the specific report section that addresses it

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a new window can be resolved by condition (obscure glazing, fixed shut below 1.7m) rather than requiring refusal

Assigned Max Leonardo 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

“DMD 13 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) seeks to ensure that roof extensions on residential properties are of an appropriate size and location in the roof plane and are not dominant when viewed from the surrounding area. To ensure this it requires that any roof dormers are inset from the ridge, eaves and sides of roof by between 0.5 to 0.75 m. Using this criteria, the proposal is not sufficiently inset in any dimension. The box dormer is inset from the ridge by only 0.4 m, the eaves by 0.3 m and the sides of the roof by 0.25 m”

20/00089/FUL

“6.1. One objection to the proposal from a neighbouring occupant was received on 17 January 2020. The points of objection can be summarised as follows: … Close to adjoining properties. … Loss of privacy. … Noise. … Out of keeping with character of area. … Structural & party wall concerns”

20/00089/FUL

Measured from 264 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 cited most on decision notices for applications Max Leonardo decided — 151 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

DMD8SPD / guidance
46 times cited
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-lEnfield plan
39 times cited
DMD37SPD / guidance
36 times cited
NPPFNPPF
35 times cited
D3London Plan
25 times cited
D4London Plan
24 times cited
DMD51SPD / guidance
23 times cited
CP4HOUSING QUALITY New housingEnfield plan
23 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
40
84%
32
87%
31
86%
30
77%
29
74%
29
79%
28
64%
25
88%
25
58%
20
89%
2
50%
1
100%
40
84%
32
87%
31
86%
Show all 12 rows
30
77%
29
74%
29
79%
28
64%
25
88%
25
58%
20
89%
2
50%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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
22/00976/FUL
Full
Approved
2022-11-09
21/03995/PRAB
Class AB Construction of new dwellinghou
Withdrawn
2022-09-30
22/00976/FUL
Full
Approved
2022-11-09
21/03995/PRAB
Class AB Construction of new dwellinghou
Withdrawn
2022-09-30
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 293 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Architectural Design London
2. MD Designs
3. The Loft Converter
4. Kudos Plan & Design
At a glance
OfficerMax Leonardo
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications293 (2020–22)
Approval rate79%
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, 2020–22. · 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 264 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.