Jennie Rebairo.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 79% across 934 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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×.
Rebairo works the checklist-narrative ('Achieving a High Quality of Urban Design' / 'Impact Upon Neighbouring Amenity') template and is pragmatic and precedent-driven: for extensions that breach DMD11's depth guideline, she explicitly builds the case around whether the proposal is 'no deeper than' or 'in line with' the adjoining extension, rather than treating the numeric limit as a hard cut-off. She frequently invokes a prior refusal on the same site and shows how a resubmission has been revised to overcome it.
· compares proposed depth directly against a specific named adjoining extension ('would sit in line with the extension at No. 100') rather than citing the DMD11 figure alone
· explicitly narrates how a resubmission addressed a previous refusal's stated reasons before concluding compliance
· acknowledges non-compliance with a policy in terms while still recommending approval on a 'balanced judgement' of the site's specific enclosure/outlook circumstances
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific named adjoining extension the proposal can be measured directly against, rather than relying on the DMD11 figure in isolation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a resubmission has addressed the stated reasons for a previous refusal on the same site
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a balanced judgement of whether an already-restricted outlook (e.g. a narrow side passage) would be further diminished, rather than a mechanical policy-compliance check
“The neighbouring property No. 100 adjoins the application site with an original 2-storey rear projection and further single storey extension. The proposed rear extension would sit in line with the extension at No. 100 and is not considered to impact on the amenities of that adjoining property through loss of light or outlook and complies with DMD11”
20/00712/HOU
“Whilst the proposal does not strictly comply with Policy DMD11 each site is assessed on its planning merits and given the site circumstances officers con”
20/00712/HOU
Measured from 444 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 444 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 rows
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.
- [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]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 444 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.