Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersMisbah Uddin
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Misbah Uddin
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Misbah Uddin.

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

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 77% across 237 decided planning applications, spanning 20 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer237 decisions77% 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 →
237
Applications
2020–23
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%74%202079%202183%202269%2023
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate77% · 25th 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 reports41 officer reports parsed
8%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
2%
"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.

Precedent & consistency
6.48× borough avg
Transport & parking
1.15× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.07× borough avg
Bulk & massing
0.96× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.94× borough avg

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

Assigned Misbah Uddin 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 current application is similar to the previous application reference:- 17/02406/FUL, which was allowed on appeal on 19 March 2018.…the appeal decision is considered the be a material consideration and carries substantial weight for this proposal”

20/01405/FUL

“The application seeks planning permission for the replacement of a 3- bedroom family home with 1 x 2-bedroom flat and 2 x 1-bedroom flats. This would not compensate for the loss of existing three-bedroom unit”

20/01235/FUL

Measured from 41 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 Misbah Uddin decided — 114 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

NPPFNPPF
51 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
37 times cited
DMD37SPD / guidance
34 times cited
D4London Plan
27 times cited
21SPD / guidance
20 times cited
CP20SUSTAINABLE ENERGY USE AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE The Council will require all new developments, and where possible via a retrofitting process inEnfield plan
18 times cited
DMD8SPD / guidance
17 times cited
CP4HOUSING QUALITY New housingEnfield plan
10 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
27
81%
26
88%
25
84%
21
100%
17
82%
17
73%
16
56%
16
69%
15
79%
10
44%
10
100%
7
71%
6
17%
6
80%
6
83%
4
75%
4
50%
2
100%
1
0%
1
100%
27
81%
26
88%
25
84%
Show all 20 rows
21
100%
17
82%
17
73%
16
56%
16
69%
15
79%
10
44%
10
100%
7
71%
6
17%
6
80%
6
83%
4
75%
4
50%
2
100%
1
0%
1
100%

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
22/01567/HOU
Householder
Approved
2023-07-28
21/01615/HOU
Householder
Approved
2023-07-18
22/01567/HOU
Householder
Approved
2023-07-28
21/01615/HOU
Householder
Approved
2023-07-18
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 237 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. ERK STRUCTURAL & DESIGN CONSULTANCY
2. PAD Architectural Consultants
3. Capital Architectural Design
4. ADA GROUP
At a glance
OfficerMisbah Uddin
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications237 (2020–23)
Approval rate77%
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 41 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.