Ronny Ferley.
Last recorded decision Apr 2022 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 48% across 318 decided planning applications, spanning 14 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×.
Ferley writes checklist reports and is careful to frame first-floor extensions against the 30-degree line from the midpoint of the nearest first-floor habitable window (distinct from the 45-degree ground-floor test), stating the actual measured distance from the boundary rather than relying on the angle test alone.
· applies the 30-degree line test specifically for first-floor extensions, separately from the ground-floor 45-degree test, and states the measured boundary distance for each affected neighbour
· assesses larger cumulative rear-extension depths against the visual quality and 'hostile/defensive' character of the existing block rather than treating any precedent as automatically justifying more depth
· notes lapsed prior permissions on the same site as a direct starting comparator for the current scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the 30-degree line test measured from the midpoint of the nearest first-floor habitable window, distinct from the ground-floor 45-degree test
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a lapsed prior permission for a similar scheme exists on the same site as a direct comparator
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether cumulative extension depth in a block, even where precedented, still represents good design rather than merely repeating a poor pattern
“The proposed 1st floor extension would be within a 30-degree angle when measured from the mid-point of the 1st floor habitable room windows of both adjoining properties at Nos. 42 & 46. This is because the 1st floor extension has been designed to be located well off the shared boundaries with both these properties”
20/00074/HOU
“Whilst there are other similarly large examples in the surrounds, they are not representation of good design and do not set positive precedents. Moreover, they are all historic extensions approved under a different local development framework”
20/00113/FUL
Measured from 238 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 238 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 rows
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.
- [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]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 238 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.