Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersRebecca Buckley
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Rebecca Buckley
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Rebecca Buckley.

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

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 89% across 211 decided planning applications, spanning 21 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer211 decisions89% 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 →
211
Applications
2021–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%89%202189%2022
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate89% · 7th 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 reports72 officer reports parsed
43%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
28%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
82%
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
2.12× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.4× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.37× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.11× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
0.96× borough avg

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

Assigned Rebecca Buckley 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

“A number of properties along Linwood Crescent have replaced their timber windows for UPVC windows (examples provided in relevant planning history). It is considered that such development, in principle, is an emerging pattern of development”

21/00635/FUL

“Development is only permitted if it extends off-of an original rear elevation of a host dwelling”

21/01099/PRH

Measured from 72 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 72 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMD9
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
27
85%
26
88%
23
91%
20
85%
18
100%
17
94%
16
69%
15
93%
14
92%
11
90%
6
83%
4
100%
3
67%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
27
85%
26
88%
23
91%
Show all 21 rows
20
85%
18
100%
17
94%
16
69%
15
93%
14
92%
11
90%
6
83%
4
100%
3
67%
2
100%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–22.[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
22/01801/FUL
Full
Approved
2022-09-28
22/02370/HOU
Householder
Refused
2022-09-20
22/01801/FUL
Full
Approved
2022-09-28
22/02370/HOU
Householder
Refused
2022-09-20
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 211 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. John Perrin & Sons Ltd
2. Resi
3. ERK STRUCTURAL & DESIGN CONSULTANCY
4. LIVARCH LTD
At a glance
OfficerRebecca Buckley
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications211 (2021–22)
Approval rate89%
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, 2021–22. · 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 72 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.