Development Intent
AtlasEnfieldOfficersThomas Holmes
Planning Atlas›Enfield›Thomas Holmes
Case officer · Enfield Planning

Thomas Holmes.

Last recorded decision Jun 2020 — no decisions in this record since

A case officer at Enfield with an approval rate of 83% across 27 decided planning applications, spanning 11 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer27 decisions83% 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 →
27
Applications
2020
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 rate83% · 11th 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
10%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
24%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
2%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
75%
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.

Character & heritage
1.53× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.4× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
0.95× borough avg
Transport & parking
0.56× borough avg

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

Assigned Thomas Holmes 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

“Rear Dormer: 1 A - Length: 5.8m B � Height: 2.2m C � Depth: 3.2m (A X B X C/2 = 20.4m3 Hip to gable end: Height (X) = 3.2m Half width (y) = 5.8m Distance from ridge to eaves (Z) = 4.7m (x) x (y) /2 = m x (Z) = 43.6m3”

20/00007/CEA

“Flank Window is obscured glazing as demonstrated on Proposed Plans”

20/00007/CEA

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 cited most on decision notices for applications Thomas Holmes decided — 16 parsed notices. From the published notices themselves; their own report wording is parsed separately.

7.6Superseded
2 times cited
DMD37SPD / guidance
2 times cited
DMD40SPD / guidance
1 times cited
7.4Superseded
1 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
1 times cited
NPPFNPPF
1 times cited
DMD13SPD / guidance
1 times cited
DMD14SPD / guidance
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
5
100%
4
100%
3
67%
3
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
50%
2
100%
2
50%
1
100%
1
0%
5
100%
4
100%
3
67%
Show all 11 rows
3
100%
2
100%
2
100%
2
50%
2
100%
2
50%
1
100%
1
0%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020.[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
20/01436/HOU
Householder
Approved
2020-07-23
20/01432/HOU
Householder
Withdrawn
2020-07-17
20/01436/HOU
Householder
Approved
2020-07-23
20/01432/HOU
Householder
Withdrawn
2020-07-17
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 27 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Colin Wilson Architectural Services
2. Parallax London
3. ERK STRUCTURAL & DESIGN CONSULTANCY
4. HK Architects
At a glance
OfficerThomas Holmes
BoroughEnfield
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications27 (2020)
Approval rate83%
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. · 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.