Planning application · Enfield
23/00648/HOU.
Aldermans House 124 Aldermans Hill London N13 4PT
Householder at Aldermans House 124 Aldermans Hill London N13 4PT, received 1 Mar 2023 — refused on 26 Apr 2023 (delegated, David Maguire).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
26 Apr 2023
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
20
Documents
20 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed
Record from the Enfield planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Single storey side extension to the front entrance porch incorporating the relocation of security hut, together with raising of front/side window sills at ground floor.
Reference
23/00648/HOU
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N13 4PT
Ward
Council
Received
1 Mar 2023
Decision date
26 Apr 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
23/00648/HOU
Type
Householder
Show all 14 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N13 4PT
Ward
Council
Received
1 Mar 2023
Decision date
26 Apr 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Enfield portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 26 Apr 2023, delegated decision by David Maguire — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
1 Mar 2023
Application received
26 Apr 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · David Maguire
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
1 Mar 2023
Application received
26 Apr 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · David Maguire
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal, due to its design, height, fenestration and siting to the front on the western side of
the existing porch, would cut across existing windows altering the appearance and balance of the front
of the house in a visually harmful manner. The proposed development would appear incongruous in the
immediate vicinity along Aldermans Hill and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the
host dwelling and the street scene in this location. Given this, the proposed extension is not well
designed, and as a result it fails to comply with policy D4 of the London Plan (2021), with policy CP30 of
the Core Strategy (2010), with policies DMD6, DMD8 and DMD37 of the Development Management
Document (2014), and with paragraphs 130 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).
Dated: 26 April 2023
Authorised on behalf of:
Mr A Higham
Head of Development Management
Development Management,
London Borough Enfield,
PO Box 53, Civic Centre,
Silver Street, Enfield,
Middlesex, EN1 3XE
If you have any questions about this decision, please contact the planning officer
david.maguire@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Design statement - 192/P/016 Rev A Supporting Information
192-P-005 Rev A Drawing
192-P-004 Rev A Drawing
192-P-008 Rev A Drawing
192-P-007 Rev A Drawing
192-P-006 Rev A Drawing
192-P-002 Rev A Drawing
192-P-003 Rev A Drawing
192-P-000 Rev A Drawing
192-P-012 Rev A Drawing
192-P-010 Rev A Drawing
192-P-015 Rev A Drawing
192-P-014 Rev A Drawing
192-P-013 Rev A Drawing
192-P-001 Rev A Drawing
Additional Information
APPEAL
Should you (an applicant or agent) feel aggrieved by the decision of the Council to either refuse
permission or to grant permission subject to conditions, you can
1
The proposal, due to its design, height, fenestration and siting to the front on the western side of
the existing porch, would cut across existing windows altering the appearance and balance of the front
of the house in a visually harmful manner. The proposed development would appear incongruous in the
immediate vicinity along Aldermans Hill and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the
host dwelling and the street scene in this location. Given this, the proposed extension is not well
designed, and as a result it fails to comply with policy D4 of the London Plan (2021), with policy CP30 of
the Core Strategy (2010), with policies DMD6, DMD8 and DMD37 of the Development Management
Document (2014), and with paragraphs 130 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).
Dated: 26 April 2023
Authorised on behalf of:
Mr A Higham
Head of Development Management
Development Management,
London Borough Enfield,
PO Box 53, Civic Centre,
Silver Street, Enfield,
Middlesex, EN1 3XE
If you have any questions about this decision, please contact the planning officer
david.maguire@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Design statement - 192/P/016 Rev A Supporting Information
192-P-005 Rev A Drawing
192-P-004 Rev A Drawing
192-P-008 Rev A Drawing
192-P-007 Rev A Drawing
192-P-006 Rev A Drawing
192-P-002 Rev A Drawing
192-P-003 Rev A Drawing
192-P-000 Rev A Drawing
192-P-012 Rev A Drawing
192-P-010 Rev A Drawing
192-P-015 Rev A Drawing
192-P-014 Rev A Drawing
192-P-013 Rev A Drawing
192-P-001 Rev A Drawing
Additional Information
APPEAL
Should you (an applicant or agent) feel aggrieved by the decision of the Council to either refuse
permission or to grant permission subject to conditions, you can
Policies cited
D4CP30DMD6DMD8DMD37National Planning Policy Framework 130National Planning Policy Framework 134NPPF
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.