Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldPolicyDMD37
Planning AtlasEnfieldDMD37
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Enfield · Local Plan · Policy

DMD37.

How Enfield actually applies DMD37: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

DMD37 is a published Enfield planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Local guidance / SPD

Enfield · DMD37
Where DMD37 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~108
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
1,394
times cited
in parsed decision notices
77%
appeal survival
127 dismissed · 38 allowed at appeal
58 of 62
officer reach
94% of officers recorded in this period
Cockfosters
top hotspot ward
108 citations
What it means in practice

Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue DMD37 case by case, classified from their decision reports — the classification pass hasn't run. Nothing is paraphrased in its place.

What the published record shows

DMD37 appears most often in Cockfosters, Town, Edmonton Green. It appears across 58 of 62 officers recorded in this period. The map shows the pattern for the selected period.

Who cites it — case-officer spreadfrom parsed decision notices · click an officer
Who leans on this policy — and how often — is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Why it is cited — and what follows
2%
in approvals
30 citations
94%
in refusals
1,304 citations

This shows the decision reports in which DMD37 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes; 60 citations sit outside the approval/refusal split.

Reason · role · consequence

Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why DMD37 was used, whether it supported approval or refusal, and what changed as a result. No conclusion is shown until that classification has been checked.

Why this policy is cited, and what follows, is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Does it hold up? — appeal performance
77% survival
127 dismissed · 38 allowed · 1 split166 PINS appeal decisions cite DMD37

From Planning Inspectorate decision letters that cite DMD37. Dismissed = the council's refusal stood, the policy held; allowed = overturned. The tighter join — this borough's own refusals citing DMD37 traced to their specific appeals — is still to come.

Related — follow the thread
Enfield
Back to the borough policy record
Open →
Committee record
What reaches members, and what they do with it
Open →
Case officers
Enfield's decision-makers
Open →
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published Enfield decision notices (high-confidence parses, approvals and refusals), joined to the canonical application record. One citation = one decision citing the policy. See the policy overview for every policy cited.

Atlas intelligence summarises patterns and observations from published planning records. Past decisions do not indicate how any future application will be determined. Every application is assessed on its own merits, having regard to the proposal, site, evidence and policies applying at the time. This information is provided for general information only and is not planning, legal, financial or professional advice.