Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersL Lewis
Planning Atlas›Enfield›L Lewis
Case officer · Enfield Planning

L Lewis.

Last recorded decision Jul 2023 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 69% across 45 decided planning applications, spanning 11 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer45 decisions69% 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 →
45
Applications
2022–23
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average

Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.

What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate69% · 38th 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 reports22 officer reports parsed
25%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
5%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
89%
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.

Energy & sustainability
1.58× borough avg
Flooding & drainage
1.22× borough avg
Character & heritage
0.88× borough avg
Trees & landscape
0.82× borough avg
Materials & detailing
0.79× borough avg

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

Assigned L Lewis 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 NPPF states that for decision-taking this means granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole � which also includes the Development Plan”

22/03892/FUL

“The floor to ceiling height in part of this dwelling would be about 2.25m, which is below the 2.5m required by London Plan policy D6 but as this is a conversion it is considered that some flexibility can be applied”

22/03892/FUL

Measured from 22 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 cited most on decision notices for applications L Lewis decided — 38 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

SI13London Plan
8 times cited
NPPFNPPF
8 times cited
CP28MANAGING FLOOD RISK THROUGH DEVELOPMENT The Council will take a risk-based approach to development and flood risk, directing developmentEnfield plan
7 times cited
CP21DELIVERING SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTUREEnfield plan
6 times cited
CP20SUSTAINABLE ENERGY USE AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE The Council will require all new developments, and where possible via a retrofitting process inEnfield plan
6 times cited
SI12London Plan
5 times cited
SI2London Plan
5 times cited
D6London Plan
5 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
8
75%
6
80%
6
100%
6
50%
4
50%
4
50%
4
25%
2
100%
2
50%
2
100%
1
100%
8
75%
6
80%
6
100%
Show all 11 rows
6
50%
4
50%
4
50%
4
25%
2
100%
2
50%
2
100%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–23.[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
23/02142/FUL
Full
Approved
2023-08-18
23/01236/FUL
Full
Refused
2023-08-02
23/02142/FUL
Full
Approved
2023-08-18
23/01236/FUL
Full
Refused
2023-08-02
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 45 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Lanyon Hogg Architects Ltd.
2. EFDW LTD
3. Intelliarch Ltd
4. Nicholas Kirk Architects
At a glance
OfficerL Lewis
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications45 (2022–23)
Approval rate69%
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, 2022–23. · 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 22 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.