Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersSamuel Wong
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Samuel Wong
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Samuel Wong.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 65% across 50 decided planning applications, spanning 14 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer50 decisions65% 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 →
50
Applications
2023–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%50%202367%202480%20250%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate65% · 46th 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 reports46 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
22%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
4%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
95%
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
2.59× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.61× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.54× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
0.85× borough avg
Transport & parking
0.79× borough avg

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

Assigned Samuel Wong 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 proposal would achieve an Urban Greening Factor of 0.41, complying with Policy G5 of the LP”

23/02753/FUL

“The proposal fails to achieve net zero as required in Policy SI2 of the London Plan. The applicant agreed to a contribution in lieu of �4,214 to mitigate the shortfall in accordance with Enfield's S106 SPD”

23/02753/FUL

Measured from 46 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 Samuel Wong decided — 35 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

NPPFNPPF
11 times cited
CP28MANAGING FLOOD RISK THROUGH DEVELOPMENT The Council will take a risk-based approach to development and flood risk, directing developmentEnfield plan
9 times cited
SI13London Plan
9 times cited
SI12London Plan
8 times cited
DMD8SPD / guidance
7 times cited
D3London Plan
6 times cited
DMD6SPD / guidance
6 times cited
D6London Plan
6 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
7
57%
7
33%
7
100%
4
50%
4
100%
4
33%
4
67%
3
67%
3
100%
3
33%
1
100%
1
100%
1
0%
1
100%
7
57%
7
33%
7
100%
Show all 14 rows
4
50%
4
100%
4
33%
4
67%
3
67%
3
100%
3
33%
1
100%
1
100%
1
0%
1
100%

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.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
26/00703/FUL
Full
Refused
2026-05-27
23/03649/LBC
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2025-11-05
26/00703/FUL
Full
Refused
2026-05-27
23/03649/LBC
Listed Building Consent
Approved
2025-11-05
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 50 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Adams Hendry Consulting Ltd.
2. Eade Planning Ltd
3. Quod
4. Bridget Sheppard Architect [BSA]
At a glance
OfficerSamuel Wong
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications50 (2023–26)
Approval rate65%
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, 2023–26. · 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 46 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.