Kate Vaggers.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 78% across 239 decided planning applications, spanning 21 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×.
Vaggers writes checklist-narrative reports and is comfortable refusing on a combination of overshadowing AND overbearing findings together, explicitly linking a scheme's orientation (south-facing gardens) to which neighbour loses light at which time of day, rather than treating loss of light as a single undifferentiated harm.
· links garden orientation directly to WHEN a neighbour loses light (e.g. morning vs afternoon sun), not just whether they do
· for outbuildings, cross-references the size of existing outbuildings at specific named neighbouring addresses as the precedent that makes the proposed size acceptable
· flags plan-accuracy problems raised by objectors as a genuine informative even where the scheme itself is refused for substantive reasons
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which specific neighbour loses light at which time of day given the garden's orientation, not just a generic overshadowing finding
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the size of existing outbuildings at named neighbouring addresses as the precedent for the proposed outbuilding's size
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a 45-degree line breach coincides with an independent overbearing/overshadowing finding, treating the two as reinforcing rather than substitute grounds
“A 45-degree line taken from the mid-point of the nearest ground floor window of No. 60 and No. 64 would cross the proposed extension having an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the adjoining properties. The gardens of the properties are south facing, meaning the path of the sun would result in a loss of light at No. 60 in the morning when the sun rises and No. 64 in the evening from around midday onwards”
23/01420/HOU
“The rear gardens along this section of Pembroke Road are sizable with established landscaping. Several outbuildings can be seen within the vicinity similar in size. The garden area is large enough to accommodate an outbuilding of this size without it appearing dominant or overbearing”
23/00867/HOU
Measured from 173 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 173 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[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, 2023–26. · 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 173 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.