Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersEdith Leung
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Edith Leung.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 78% across 55 decided planning applications, spanning 19 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer55 decisions78% 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 →
55
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%88%202550%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate78% · 23rd 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 reports47 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
12%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
13%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
76%
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
1.84× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.66× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.52× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.26× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.1× borough avg

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

Assigned Edith Leung 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

Paragraph 154(b), which allows: "The provision of ap

24/02817/FUL

Under Paragraph 215 of the NPPF (2024), the level of harm to the Trent Park Conservation Area and Registered Park and Garden is considered to be "less than substantial." In such cases, the harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal

24/02817/FUL

Measured from 47 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 47 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMD 37
10 times cited
DMD 6
6 times cited
DMD 45
5 times cited
DMD 47
5 times cited
DMD 51
5 times cited
SO1
4 times cited
SO3
4 times cited
DMD 13
4 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

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
26/01588/LBC
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2026-05-28
26/00823/HOU
Householder
Approved
2026-05-27
26/01588/LBC
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2026-05-28
26/00823/HOU
Householder
Approved
2026-05-27
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 55 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Vitco planning
2. G3JK
3. Sole Concepts Limited
4. Detailed Planning Ltd
At a glance
OfficerEdith Leung
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications55 (2020–26)
Approval rate78%
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 47 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.