David Maguire.
Recently active — last recorded decision Jun 2025
A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 71% across 217 decided planning applications, spanning 23 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Enfield reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Maguire writes narrative reports and applies a genuinely proportionate approach to DMD11 non-compliance: rather than refusing outright where a scheme exceeds the depth guideline, he explicitly weighs the ADDITIONAL depth over an existing extension against the improvement in build quality the replacement would deliver, treating a small marginal exceedance differently from a wholesale departure.
· measures the ADDITIONAL depth a replacement extension adds over what already exists, treating that marginal increase (not the total depth) as the operative test
· explicitly weighs improved build quality of a replacement extension as a factor that can offset a modest DMD11 exceedance
· for HMO/conversion applications, walks through DMD5's specific numeric criteria (20% clustering, 1-in-5 consecutive units) methodically before a conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the ADDITIONAL depth a replacement extension adds beyond what already exists, not the total depth in isolation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a build-quality improvement over the existing structure can offset a modest DMD11 exceedance
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: DMD5's specific numeric clustering thresholds (20% of a road, 1-in-5 consecutive units) checked explicitly for conversion schemes
“The extension proposed will replace an existing rear extension which has a maximum depth of circa 4.2 metres. In terms of appearance and build quality, the proposal is expected to significantly improve upon the existing built form at the rear of the property. Although the proposal would build back 5 metres beyond the original rear wall of the dwelling, the additional depth proposed over and above the existing 4.2 metres is relatively minor”
22/00111/FUL
“The number of conversions: 6 � Must not exceed 20% of all properties along any road: and � Only 1 out of a consecutive row of 5 units may be converted”
22/00139/FUL
Measured from 237 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.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 237 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 rows
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.
- [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]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]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]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 237 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.