Tendai Mutasa.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 79% across 373 decided planning applications, spanning 32 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×.
Mutasa handles heritage and Listed Building mixed-use major applications and takes care to distinguish which curtilage structures have ALREADY been lost (and when) from those the current application would remove, using that history to establish exactly what heritage baseline the current scheme should be judged against.
· establishes precisely which curtilage/heritage-adjacent structures have already been demolished and roughly when, before assessing what the current application would additionally remove
· sequences a numbered material-considerations list (Principle, Heritage, Design, Quality, Amenity, Housing Mix, Highways, Flood risk, Biodiversity, Energy) as an explicit contents section before the report proper
· ties unit-count thresholds precisely to affordable-housing/S106 liability, noting where a scheme's net increase must stay below a specific unit count (e.g. 10) to avoid triggering a contribution, and how that is secured by condition
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: precisely which heritage/curtilage structures have already been lost and when, establishing the correct baseline for assessing the current application's impact
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a scheme's net unit increase stays below a specific threshold that would otherwise trigger an affordable-housing contribution, and how that is secured
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a full, explicit numbered list of every material consideration to be addressed before the substantive report begins
“A curtilage listed C19th brick outbuilding to the south of the main Listed Building has been demolished since 2008, the precise date is not known. This application would regul”
20/02628/FUL
“The development would not have a net increase of 10 units, given the loss of 5 units within the Listed Building and as such would not be liable for an affordable housing contribution. In order to ensure that the net increase does not exceed 10 units, it is important that the works to the Listed building are done and completed before occupation of the new buildings”
20/02628/FUL
Measured from 101 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 101 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 32 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 101 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.