Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersAkshay Sisodia
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Akshay Sisodia
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Akshay Sisodia.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 73% across 72 decided planning applications, spanning 23 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer72 decisions73% 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 →
72
Applications
2025–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%60%202578%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate73% · 31st 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 reports48 officer reports parsed
60%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
30%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
56%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
53%
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.

Transport & parking
1.54× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
1.53× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.5× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.4× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.03× borough avg

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

Assigned Akshay Sisodia 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 submitted photograph detailing the development prior to the installation of trellising on the shared boundary within with No.173 Chase Road indicates that adults of an average height (approximately 175-176 cm for a male adult and approximately 162-163 cm for a female adult) would easily be able to overlook the rear garden of this neighbour when standing on the deck”

25/02141/HOU

“New boundary screening under permitted development would be limited to a height of 2 metres. The provision of effective boundary screening under permitted development would be unfeasible given the height of the structure, as such officers are not able to take into account any permitted development fall-back for boundary screening within the assessment of this application”

25/02141/HOU

Measured from 48 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 48 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMD 37
30 times cited
DMD 45
29 times cited
DMD 68
27 times cited
DMD 6
24 times cited
DMD 9
24 times cited
DMD 60
24 times cited
DMD 62
24 times cited
DMD 49
23 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
16
56%
7
100%
5
100%
5
50%
4
100%
4
100%
4
50%
3
67%
3
50%
2
50%
2
50%
2
0%
2
50%
2
100%
2
–
2
100%
1
0%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
–
16
56%
7
100%
5
100%
Show all 23 rows
5
50%
4
100%
4
100%
4
50%
3
67%
3
50%
2
50%
2
50%
2
0%
2
50%
2
100%
2
–
2
100%
1
0%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
–

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[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
25/04451/FUL
Full
Approved
2026-06-03
26/00045/FUL
Full
Approved
2026-06-03
25/04451/FUL
Full
Approved
2026-06-03
26/00045/FUL
Full
Approved
2026-06-03
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 72 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Redwoods Projects
2. Excel Planning
3. PAD Architectural Consultants
4. Advance Architecture
At a glance
OfficerAkshay Sisodia
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications72 (2025–26)
Approval rate73%
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, 2025–26. · 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 48 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.