Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldCommittee
Planning AtlasEnfieldPlanning Committee
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
London Borough of Enfield

Planning committee.

Enfield's planning committee decides the applications officers don't settle under delegation. It approved 90% of the 138 decisions that reached it, hears just 0.7% of decisions to committee, and of the 23 refusals traced in recent minutes, 9 were overturned at appeal. Where it acts, and on what, is below.[1]

Labour majority19 members138 committee decisions2020–26
Enfield · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
138
Committee decisions
2020–26
19
Members
Labour majority
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
Public planning-committee records, minutes and decision notices. Conduct in an official capacity only.
Members refusing officer-recommended approvals — London-wide[3]Dashed line = average per year
avg 4492016302017212018382019652020552021582022462023512024702025

Committee refusals of officer-recommended approvals traced in minutes across all 33 boroughs, by year. Enfield's own officer-alignment trend needs the officer recommendation on each committee item — a minutes-level source still being loaded.

What goes to committee — by application type[1]
Full: 49% — click to filter the pageLBE - Dev by LA: 15%Householder: 9% — click to filter the pageOutline: 7%Other: 20%
Full49%
LBE - Dev by LA15%
Householder9%
Outline7%
Other20%

Share of the 137 committee decisions on record. The call-in reason itself comes from committee minutes — not yet loaded.

In contextVersus London committees
Refusals in committee minutes23 · 15th of 33
lower is betterdashed = London avg
Refused against officer advice ⚠ unverified5 · 18th of 33
lower is betterdashed = London avg
Refusals overturned at appeal9 · 6th of 33
lower is betterdashed = London avg
Grounds the committee acts on[2]

The policies most often cited on Enfield refusal notices — borough-wide, across officer and committee decisions alike. Which of these specifically drove a committee departure from the officer recommendation needs minute-level coding, not yet loaded, so the two aren't separated below.

NPPF2,691×
CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010)457×
CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010)300×
D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021)268×
CP4 and CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010)260×
DMD59, DMD60, DMD61, DMD62 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014)204×
D4 of the London Plan (2021)198×
SI 12 and SI 13 of the London Plan (2021)194×

2,092 high-confidence refusal notices parsed for Enfield. How often a refusal on each ground survives appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

How Enfield applies its planning policies →
Decisions by ward

Where the 80 committee decisions on record land, 2020–26.[1] 1 carry no ward on the notice. Click the map above to explore spatially, or a row to open the ward.

The members — votes recorded

Member by member: the planning-committee votes recorded against each councillor in the published minutes, and how they lean.[2] How often each votes with the officer recommendation needs the officer rec on every item — not yet loaded, so it isn't shown.

Meeting minutes

The committee figures on this page are derived from Enfield's published decision notices and committee minutes. Agendas, full minutes and webcasts are published on the council's own democracy website — the source of truth for every meeting.

How these figures are derived — methodology ↗
Recent committee decisions
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
21/01140/FUL
Full
Refused
2024-11-07
21/01140/FUL
Full
Refused
2024-11-07
Full decision history locked
Subscribe to see all 80 decisions →
Committee members— subscriber data
At a glance
CommitteePlanning Committee
ControlLabour majority
Members19
Decisions138 (2020–26)
Committee approval90%
Delegated99.3%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
Committee Watch →
When members overturn the officer line — and how those calls fare at appeal.
The politics of housing in Enfield
Council composition, and how each councillor votes on planning applications.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Committee vs delegated split, committee approval rate and every committee-decided application — the decision-level field on Enfield's published decision notices, 2020–26. · methodology
  2. [2]Committee membership, party control and per-member vote counts — Enfield membership records and published planning-committee minutes; member matching across inconsistent name forms is still being completed.
  3. [3]Refusals against officer advice and appeal outcomes — committee minutes cross-matched with Planning Inspectorate appeal decisions (Committee Watch dataset, all 33 boroughs). · Committee Watch
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.