Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersCallum Wright
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Callum Wright
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Callum Wright.

Last recorded decision Mar 2021 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 67% across 103 decided planning applications, spanning 13 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer103 decisions67% 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 →
103
Applications
2020–21
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%63%202078%2021
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate67% · 40th 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 reports62 officer reports parsed
25%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
8%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
64%
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.

Noise & disturbance
2.73× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
2.36× borough avg
Character & heritage
2.34× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.82× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1.72× borough avg

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

Assigned Callum Wright 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

“Specifically relating to the chimney breasts to which both chimneys appear on some of the proposed drawings and some of the existing with inconsistencies as the whether they will be retained or not. As such it has been considered that they are to be removed, however, the refusal would still stand amongst the other reasons detailed”

20/00002/HOU

“It is considered that the siting of the development, combined with the mono poles excessive height would be visually intrusive in this exposed location. It is also considered that the proposal would cause harm to the metropolitan open land particularly as there has been little effort to camouflage the mono pole and its associated cabinets”

20/00024/FUL

Measured from 62 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 62 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

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
17 times cited
7.6
11 times cited
7.4
4 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
20
74%
19
71%
12
44%
12
82%
8
88%
8
71%
6
50%
5
60%
4
50%
3
0%
3
100%
2
50%
1
0%
20
74%
19
71%
12
44%
Show all 13 rows
12
82%
8
88%
8
71%
6
50%
5
60%
4
50%
3
0%
3
100%
2
50%
1
0%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–21.[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
21/00576/HOU
Householder
Approved
2021-04-14
21/00578/FUL
Full
Approved
2021-04-13
21/00576/HOU
Householder
Approved
2021-04-14
21/00578/FUL
Full
Approved
2021-04-13
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 103 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Resi
2. ERK STRUCTURAL & DESIGN CONSULTANCY
3. Opzet Designers Limited
4. Civils Consulting Ltd
At a glance
OfficerCallum Wright
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications103 (2020–21)
Approval rate67%
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, 2020–21. · 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 62 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.