Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersLap Pan Chong
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Lap-Pan Chong.

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

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 82% across 66 decided planning applications, spanning 12 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer66 decisions82% 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 →
66
Applications
2020–23
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%70%202090%2021100%2022100%2023
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate82% · 14th 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 reports51 officer reports parsed
6%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
22%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
6%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
85%
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
1.89× borough avg
Precedent & consistency
1.39× borough avg
Bulk & massing
1.36× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
1.09× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
0.94× borough avg

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

Assigned Lap-Pan Chong 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

It is noted that Class A1 is recently replaced with the new Class E(a). Section(3)(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)(Amendments) (England) Regulations 2020 states that any references in the GPDO to the uses or use classes specified in the Schedule to the Use Classes Order are to be read as if those references were to the uses or use classes which applied in relation to England and were specified in the Schedule to the Use Classes Order on 31st August 2020

20/00003/FUL

There is no uniform rear building line in this part of Newmans Way

20/01020/HOU

Measured from 51 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 51 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

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-l
21 times cited
DMD37
14 times cited
D3
7 times cited
CP25PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS The Council, working with its partners, will seek to provide safe, convenient, and accessible routes
6 times cited
7.6
5 times cited
CP2HOUSING SUPPLY AND LOCATIONS FOR NEW HOMES The Council will make provision to exceed the housing target of 3,950 new homes as set out in the
5 times cited
CP3AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Council will seek to achieve a borough-wide target of 40% affordable housing units in new
5 times cited
CP4HOUSING QUALITY New housing
5 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–23.[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
22/01625/RE4
LBE - Dev by LA
Approved
2023-12-20
23/01345/LBC
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2023-07-14
22/01625/RE4
LBE - Dev by LA
Approved
2023-12-20
23/01345/LBC
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2023-07-14
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 66 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Lichfields
2. Architectural Design Point Limited
3. PAD Architectural Consultants
4. Capital Architectural Design
At a glance
OfficerLap-Pan Chong
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications66 (2020–23)
Approval rate82%
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, 2020–23. · 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 51 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.