Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersNatalie Price
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Natalie Price.

Recently active — last recorded decision Jul 2025

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 74% across 28 decided planning applications, spanning 12 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer28 decisions74% 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 →
28
Applications
2024–25
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average

Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.

What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate74% · 27th 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 reports25 officer reports parsed
11%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
6%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
65%
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.

Noise & disturbance
1.98× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.32× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.14× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.06× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.05× borough avg

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

Assigned Natalie Price 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

Occupancy could be increased if kitchen amenities are doubled as per the guidance provided below. There are adequate bathrooms throughout the property with the use of ensuites. Room three has a compromised escape route through a high fire risk room being that of a kitchen and therefore cannot be used

25/00554/FUL

Please note, however, that Housing Enforcement officers have raised a concern about the fire agree to the garden on the ground floor

25/00554/FUL

Measured from 25 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 25 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMD 11
10 times cited
DMD 37
8 times cited
DMD 3
7 times cited
DMD 6
6 times cited
DMD 1
6 times cited
DMD 2
6 times cited
DMD 5
6 times cited
DMD 7
6 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–25.[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
25/02269/FUL
Full
Approved
2025-09-04
25/02269/FUL
Full
Approved
2025-09-04
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 28 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Excel Planning
2. Cube Architects Ltd
3. Charterhouse Design and Build Limited
4. Bashkal
At a glance
OfficerNatalie Price
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications28 (2024–25)
Approval rate74%
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, 2024–25. · 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 25 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.