Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersAllison Russell
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Allison Russell
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Allison Russell.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 73% across 149 decided planning applications, spanning 20 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer149 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 →
149
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%100%202094%202170%202285%202365%202458%202583%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate73% · 30th 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 reports53 officer reports parsed
18%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
18%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
8%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
87%
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.

Energy & sustainability
2.78× borough avg
Trees & landscape
2.59× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.42× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.17× borough avg
Materials & detailing
0.99× borough avg

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

Assigned Allison Russell 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

“Policy DMD 14 Side Extensions specifically requires a 1 metre set back from the boundary to prevent a terrace effect and by providing the 1 metre set back allows for a visual break between buildings. In this part of the borough, buildings are spaciously set out with good house to garden plot ratios and it is regarded as one of the leafier parts of the borough”

20/03621/FUL

“Policy DMD 49: Sustainable Design and Construction Statements requires applicants for new dwellings to submit a sustainable design and construction statement. No such statement was submitted”

20/03621/FUL

Measured from 53 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 53 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4
2 times cited
T5
2 times cited
CP25PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS The Council, working with its partners, will seek to provide safe, convenient, and accessible routes
2 times cited
CP30MAINTAINING AND IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF THE BUILT AND OPEN ENVIRONMENT All developments and interventions in the public realm must be high quality and design-l
2 times cited
DMD37
2 times cited
DMD 8
2 times cited
GG2
1 times cited
GG5
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
28
65%
13
60%
12
82%
10
78%
10
63%
10
70%
9
89%
9
88%
9
78%
8
67%
6
50%
6
60%
5
75%
4
75%
3
100%
2
50%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
28
65%
13
60%
12
82%
Show all 20 rows
10
78%
10
63%
10
70%
9
89%
9
88%
9
78%
8
67%
6
50%
6
60%
5
75%
4
75%
3
100%
2
50%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
26/01130/FUL
Full
Refused
2026-05-26
26/00420/FUL
Full
Approved
2026-05-13
26/01130/FUL
Full
Refused
2026-05-26
26/00420/FUL
Full
Approved
2026-05-13
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 149 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. RPR Planning Ltd
2. Stace LLP
3. ERK STRUCTURAL & DESIGN CONSULTANCY
4. FPS (UK) LTD
At a glance
OfficerAllison Russell
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications149 (2020–26)
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, 2020–26. · 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 53 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.