Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersAndrew Pommells
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Andrew Pommells
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Andrew Pommells.

Recently active — last recorded decision Sep 2025

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 75% across 331 decided planning applications, spanning 21 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer331 decisions75% 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 →
331
Applications
2021–25
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%74%202276%202377%202473%2025
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate75% · 26th 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 reports65 officer reports parsed
8%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
11%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
67%
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.

Character & heritage
1.7× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
0.97× borough avg
Trees & landscape
0.9× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.86× borough avg
Bulk & massing
0.85× borough avg

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

Assigned Andrew Pommells 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 postcode search of the area shows that there have Been a number of conversions on the street, however, the approval in 2017 advises this would be deemed as acceptable. Given that there has been no major policy change locally since then, pragmatically speaking, no objection can reasonably be raised”

22/02544/FUL

“Whilst is acknowledged that the HMO licensing team has advised that incorrect "existing" information has been submitted, the determination is based on the proposed plans rather than seeking retrospective permission for the "existing" layout”

22/02613/FUL

Measured from 65 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 65 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMD 37
30 times cited
D4
25 times cited
DMD 6
23 times cited
DMD 8
22 times cited
D3
17 times cited
CP 30
17 times cited
DMD 13
14 times cited
DMD 11
12 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
37
76%
29
71%
27
81%
26
69%
25
72%
25
68%
24
79%
22
91%
22
82%
19
76%
17
82%
17
65%
10
80%
8
88%
7
67%
6
80%
5
60%
2
50%
1
100%
1
0%
1
0%
37
76%
29
71%
27
81%
Show all 21 rows
26
69%
25
72%
25
68%
24
79%
22
91%
22
82%
19
76%
17
82%
17
65%
10
80%
8
88%
7
67%
6
80%
5
60%
2
50%
1
100%
1
0%
1
0%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–25.[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
25/03010/HOU
Householder
Approved
2025-10-28
25/02295/FUL
Full
Approved
2025-10-24
25/03010/HOU
Householder
Approved
2025-10-28
25/02295/FUL
Full
Approved
2025-10-24
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 331 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. ERK STRUCTURAL & DESIGN CONSULTANCY
2. Stace LLP
3. CG Architects
4. John Perrin & Sons Ltd
At a glance
OfficerAndrew Pommells
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications331 (2021–25)
Approval rate75%
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, 2021–25. · 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 65 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.