Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersAmma Busia
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Amma Busia
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Amma Busia.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 65% across 419 decided planning applications, spanning 24 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer419 decisions65% 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 →
419
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%71%202062%202170%202257%202374%202470%202567%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate65% · 48th 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 reports83 officer reports parsed
8%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
4%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
17%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
80%
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× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.69× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.68× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.16× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.01× borough avg

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

Assigned Amma Busia 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

“New external seating. New external Planters seating and external illuminated screens shown indicatively not considered under this planning application and subject to a separate license application under S115EB of the Highways Act”

21/04659/CND

“No. 6 Duchy Road has front dormers that sit appropriately along the roof plane and are modest in size. 6.5 The proposal would introduce three dormers to the front that would be approximately 1.9 metres wide”

22/03931/HOU

Measured from 83 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 83 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMD 37
4 times cited
DMD 51
4 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
56
65%
45
66%
39
68%
38
56%
34
68%
30
65%
28
73%
26
58%
22
73%
21
71%
20
50%
15
67%
12
42%
8
50%
7
86%
5
100%
3
67%
2
0%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
–
56
65%
45
66%
39
68%
Show all 24 rows
38
56%
34
68%
30
65%
28
73%
26
58%
22
73%
21
71%
20
50%
15
67%
12
42%
8
50%
7
86%
5
100%
3
67%
2
0%
2
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
–

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
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. ERK STRUCTURAL & DESIGN CONSULTANCY
2. Redwoods Projects
3. PAD Architectural Consultants
4. Advance Architecture
At a glance
OfficerAmma Busia
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications419 (2020–26)
Approval rate65%
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 83 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.