Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersJames Clark
Planning Atlas›Enfield›James Clark
Case officer · Enfield Planning

James Clark.

Last recorded decision Mar 2022 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 46% across 33 decided planning applications, spanning 11 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer33 decisions46% 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 →
33
Applications
2020–22
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%21%202070%202175%2022
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate46% · 61st 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 reports

Not filled in yet — this needs at least 20 of James Clark's own officer reports parsed, and their reports haven't reached that threshold in the parsing run. It fills automatically as parsing progresses; nothing is estimated in its place.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies cited most on decision notices for applications James Clark decided — 23 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

DMD37SPD / guidance
12 times cited
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-lEnfield plan
12 times cited
7.4Superseded
10 times cited
DMD6SPD / guidance
10 times cited
CP20SUSTAINABLE ENERGY USE AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE The Council will require all new developments, and where possible via a retrofitting process inEnfield plan
9 times cited
DMD8SPD / guidance
8 times cited
DMD51SPD / guidance
8 times cited
NPPFNPPF
7 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
7
60%
7
67%
4
25%
4
33%
2
0%
2
50%
2
0%
1
100%
1
100%
1
–
1
0%
7
60%
7
67%
4
25%
Show all 11 rows
4
33%
2
0%
2
50%
2
0%
1
100%
1
100%
1
–
1
0%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–22.[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
21/04817/FUL
Full
Refused
2022-06-09
21/01816/FUL
Full
Approved
2022-05-10
21/04817/FUL
Full
Refused
2022-06-09
21/01816/FUL
Full
Approved
2022-05-10
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 33 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Quod
2. PAD Architectural Consultants
3. Intelliarch Ltd
4. DD Architects
At a glance
OfficerJames Clark
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications33 (2020–22)
Approval rate46%
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, 2020–22. · 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]Policy citations will be coded from officer reports against the adopted Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF — that parsing has not run for this borough yet.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.