Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersGideon Whittingham
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Gideon Whittingham.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 94% across 319 decided planning applications, spanning 28 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer319 decisions94% 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 →
319
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%86%202067%202184%202278%202367%2024100%2025100%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate94% · 2nd 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 reports109 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
0%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
28%
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.

Trees & landscape
4.11× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
2.89× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.7× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.16× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
0.96× borough avg

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

Assigned Gideon Whittingham 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

The lawful use of the site, as a car park (272 spaces) has been confirmed by way of a Certificate of Lawfulness (Ref: 15/00037/CEU) due to the continuous ten year period prior to the date of the application. Much of this evidence base stems from the planning permission in 1962 (Ref: 11/0528) which granted a car park

20/02127/FUL

Proposals for the loss of existing facilities will only be permitted if either of the two criteria of the policy are met; a suitable replacement facility is provided that maintains the same levels of public provisions and accessibility, or, evidence to demonstrate that there is not demand for the existing use or any alternative

20/03575/LBEPRE

Measured from 109 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 109 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMD 37
72 times cited
DMD 49
51 times cited
DMD 56
51 times cited
DMD 60
51 times cited
DMD 62
51 times cited
DMD 6
21 times cited
DMD 51
21 times cited
DMD 59
21 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
26/01104/RE4
LBE - Dev by LA
Approved
2026-05-15
26/00977/RE4
LBE - Dev by LA
Approved
2026-05-07
26/01104/RE4
LBE - Dev by LA
Approved
2026-05-15
26/00977/RE4
LBE - Dev by LA
Approved
2026-05-07
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 319 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Philip Pank Partnership LLP
2. CARDO Group
3. John Perrin & Sons Ltd
4. Altaras Architecture Ltd
At a glance
OfficerGideon Whittingham
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications319 (2020–26)
Approval rate94%
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 109 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.