Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersHarsha Bhundia
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Harsha Bhundia
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Harsha Bhundia.

Active — last recorded decision Feb 2026

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 60% across 43 decided planning applications, spanning 16 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer43 decisions60% 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 →
43
Applications
2025–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%69%202555%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate60% · 52nd 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 reports40 officer reports parsed
5%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
10%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
3%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
68%
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.

Transport & parking
1.27× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.05× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.01× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
0.74× borough avg
Bulk & massing
0.69× borough avg

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

Assigned Harsha Bhundia 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

“Waste: a communal waste container is required for the HMO, as standard fortnightly wheelie bins are insufficient. This container must be hired weekly through the commercial waste team”

25/01506/FUL

“If applicable, a Recreational Pressure Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) Screening and Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken and the Local Planning Authority, are satisfied impacts on the Epping Forest SAC would be appropriately mitigated”

25/01506/FUL

Measured from 40 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 40 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

DMD 3
6 times cited
DMD 9
5 times cited
DMD 37
4 times cited
DMD 38
4 times cited
DMD 45
4 times cited
DMD 47
4 times cited
DMD 51
4 times cited
DMD 59
4 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
11
50%
6
50%
5
60%
3
33%
3
33%
3
67%
2
100%
2
50%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%
11
50%
6
50%
5
60%
Show all 16 rows
3
33%
3
33%
3
67%
2
100%
2
50%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
100%
1
0%
1
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[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
26/00381/FUL
Full
Approved
2026-03-27
26/00236/FUL
Full
Refused
2026-03-23
26/00381/FUL
Full
Approved
2026-03-27
26/00236/FUL
Full
Refused
2026-03-23
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 43 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Hybrid Planning & Development
2. Redwoods Projects
3. London Planning
4. Hertford Planning Service
At a glance
OfficerHarsha Bhundia
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications43 (2025–26)
Approval rate60%
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, 2025–26. · 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 40 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.