Planning application · Enfield
24/01297/FUL.
81D Pretoria Road North London N18 1SP
Full / Other Planning at 81D Pretoria Road North London N18 1SP, received 19 Apr 2024 — refused on 25 Jul 2025 (delegated, Allison Russell).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
25 Jul 2025
66 wks
Decision time
58 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
10
Documents
10 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
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?
Erection of a three storey block of offices/workshop with associated car parking.
Reference
24/01297/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N18 1SP
Ward
Council
Received
19 Apr 2024
Validated
29 May 2024
Target date
24 Jul 2024
Decision date
25 Jul 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
24/01297/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N18 1SP
Ward
Council
Received
19 Apr 2024
Validated
29 May 2024
Target date
24 Jul 2024
Decision date
25 Jul 2025
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 25 Jul 2025, delegated decision by Allison Russell — 66 weeks from submission (58 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
19 Apr 2024
Application received
29 May 2024
Application validated
24 Jul 2024
Statutory target date
25 Jul 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Allison Russell
19 Apr 2024
Application received
29 May 2024
Application validated
24 Jul 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
25 Jul 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Allison Russell
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed office block and associated car park would result in the loss of land associated
with industrial uses within the designated Locally Significant Industrial Site. The proposed
development is therefore contrary to Policy E6 of the London Plan (2021), CP 15 of the Core Policy
(2010), DMD 20 and DMD 23 of the Development Management Document (2014) and the NPPF
(2024).
2
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that any increase in on-street car
parking would not adversely affect the local highway network nor has it been demonstrated that the
proposed car park has the capacity to safely accommodate on-site car parking. Details of servicing
arrangements and cycle parking have also not be provided and therefore, it has not been
demonstrated adequate provision would be provided. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies T5,
T6.2 and T7 of the London Plan (2021), CP 24, CP25 of Core Policy (2010), DMD 23, 45, 46 and DMD
47 of the Development Management Document (2014) and the NPPF (2024).
3
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate the adequate, safe and functional
provision is made for refuse collection. As such the proposal does not comply with Policies T2, T3, T4,
T6, T6.1 and T7 of the London Plan (2021), CP22 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), DMD23,
DMD45, DMD46, DMD47, DMD48 and DMD57of the Enfield Development Management Document
(2014) and the Enfield Household Recycling and Waste Planning Guidance for New Developments
(2024).
4
The proposed development, by virtue of its detailed design, namely comprising of extensive
areas of solid facades with a lack of fenestration and rhythm to the proposed fenestration required to
bring definition and visual interest would appear as a discordant form of development. The proposal
fails to respect the rhythm, style and proportions of the building/group of buildings of which it would
form a part of. As such, the proposed development is contrary to Policies D4 of the London Plan
(2021), CP30 of Core Policy (2010) DMD23, DMD 37, DMD 39 of the Development Management
Document (2014) and NPPF (2024).
5
Insufficient information has been submitted to ensure that the proposed development would
incorporate a sustainable drainage system to ensure the effective management of surface water,
which would reduce the risk of flooding, pollution and other environmental damage. As such the
proposal is contrary to Policies SI 14, SI 13 of the London Plan (2021), CP 21 of Core Strategy (2010),
DMD 59. DMD 60, DMD 61 of the Development Management Document (2014) and NPPF (2024).
6
In the absence of an ecology report, which includes ecological enhancements to improve the
biodiversity offer on the site, it has not been demonstrated that the adjoining Wildlife Corridor would be
adversely impacted by the proposal. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies G6 of
the London Plan (2021), CP36 of Core Strategy (2010), DMD 74, DMD 79 of the Development
Management Document (2014) and the NPPF (2024).
7
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate the maximum achievable energy
efficiency achievable for the proposed development nor has it been demonstrated that the proposed
development would provide for the maximum achievable improvements in the total CO2 emissions
arising from the operation of a development and its services over part L of Building Regs 2013. As
such, the proposed development is contrary to Policies CP 20 of Core Policy 20, DMD 49, DMD 51
and 53 of the Development Management Document (2014) and NPPF (2014).
8
In the absence of a BREEAM pre-assessment report, demonstrating that the proposed
development is on target to achieve an 'Excellent' rating the proposal is contrary to Policies SI 5 of the
London Plan (2021), DMD 49, DMD 50 and DMD 58 of the Development Management Document
(2014).
Dated: 25 July 2025
Authorised on behalf of:
Karen Page
Head of Planning and Building Control
Housing, Regeneration and Development Department
Enfield Council
PO Box 53, Civic Centre
Silver Street, Enfield
EN1 3XE
If you have any questions about this decision, please contact the planning officer
allison.russell@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Location Plan Drawing
Existing Block Plan Drawing
Proposed Block Plan Drawing
Proposed Office Elevations Drawing
Proposed Floor Plans Drawing
Proposed Upper Floor Plans Drawing
Proposed Sections Drawing
Sustainable Drainage Assessment 2024-05-24 Supporting Information
BRUKL Output Document Supporting Information
Additional Details on Project Parameters as Input by the Drawing
Certifier
Additional Information
1 The applicant is advised to arrange a formal pre application to discuss any future
development on this site. Details of our pre application service can be found at:
https://www.enfield.gov.uk/services/planning/planning-pre-application-advice-service
APPEAL GUIDANCE:
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 proposed office block and associated car park would result in the loss of land associated
with industrial uses within the designated Locally Significant Industrial Site. The proposed
development is therefore contrary to Policy E6 of the London Plan (2021), CP 15 of the Core Policy
(2010), DMD 20 and DMD 23 of the Development Management Document (2014) and the NPPF
(2024).
2
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that any increase in on-street car
parking would not adversely affect the local highway network nor has it been demonstrated that the
proposed car park has the capacity to safely accommodate on-site car parking. Details of servicing
arrangements and cycle parking have also not be provided and therefore, it has not been
demonstrated adequate provision would be provided. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies T5,
T6.2 and T7 of the London Plan (2021), CP 24, CP25 of Core Policy (2010), DMD 23, 45, 46 and DMD
47 of the Development Management Document (2014) and the NPPF (2024).
3
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate the adequate, safe and functional
provision is made for refuse collection. As such the proposal does not comply with Policies T2, T3, T4,
T6, T6.1 and T7 of the London Plan (2021), CP22 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), DMD23,
DMD45, DMD46, DMD47, DMD48 and DMD57of the Enfield Development Management Document
(2014) and the Enfield Household Recycling and Waste Planning Guidance for New Developments
(2024).
Show all 8 rows
4
The proposed development, by virtue of its detailed design, namely comprising of extensive
areas of solid facades with a lack of fenestration and rhythm to the proposed fenestration required to
bring definition and visual interest would appear as a discordant form of development. The proposal
fails to respect the rhythm, style and proportions of the building/group of buildings of which it would
form a part of. As such, the proposed development is contrary to Policies D4 of the London Plan
(2021), CP30 of Core Policy (2010) DMD23, DMD 37, DMD 39 of the Development Management
Document (2014) and NPPF (2024).
5
Insufficient information has been submitted to ensure that the proposed development would
incorporate a sustainable drainage system to ensure the effective management of surface water,
which would reduce the risk of flooding, pollution and other environmental damage. As such the
proposal is contrary to Policies SI 14, SI 13 of the London Plan (2021), CP 21 of Core Strategy (2010),
DMD 59. DMD 60, DMD 61 of the Development Management Document (2014) and NPPF (2024).
6
In the absence of an ecology report, which includes ecological enhancements to improve the
biodiversity offer on the site, it has not been demonstrated that the adjoining Wildlife Corridor would be
adversely impacted by the proposal. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies G6 of
the London Plan (2021), CP36 of Core Strategy (2010), DMD 74, DMD 79 of the Development
Management Document (2014) and the NPPF (2024).
7
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate the maximum achievable energy
efficiency achievable for the proposed development nor has it been demonstrated that the proposed
development would provide for the maximum achievable improvements in the total CO2 emissions
arising from the operation of a development and its services over part L of Building Regs 2013. As
such, the proposed development is contrary to Policies CP 20 of Core Policy 20, DMD 49, DMD 51
and 53 of the Development Management Document (2014) and NPPF (2014).
8
In the absence of a BREEAM pre-assessment report, demonstrating that the proposed
development is on target to achieve an 'Excellent' rating the proposal is contrary to Policies SI 5 of the
London Plan (2021), DMD 49, DMD 50 and DMD 58 of the Development Management Document
(2014).
Dated: 25 July 2025
Authorised on behalf of:
Karen Page
Head of Planning and Building Control
Housing, Regeneration and Development Department
Enfield Council
PO Box 53, Civic Centre
Silver Street, Enfield
EN1 3XE
If you have any questions about this decision, please contact the planning officer
allison.russell@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Location Plan Drawing
Existing Block Plan Drawing
Proposed Block Plan Drawing
Proposed Office Elevations Drawing
Proposed Floor Plans Drawing
Proposed Upper Floor Plans Drawing
Proposed Sections Drawing
Sustainable Drainage Assessment 2024-05-24 Supporting Information
BRUKL Output Document Supporting Information
Additional Details on Project Parameters as Input by the Drawing
Certifier
Additional Information
1 The applicant is advised to arrange a formal pre application to discuss any future
development on this site. Details of our pre application service can be found at:
https://www.enfield.gov.uk/services/planning/planning-pre-application-advice-service
APPEAL GUIDANCE:
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
E6DMD20DMD23NPPFT5T6.2T7Development Management Document 45Development Management Document 46DMD47T2T3T4T6T6.1CP22D4DMD37DMD39SI14SI13CP21DMD60DMD61G6CP36DMD74DMD79Development Management Document 20DMD49DMD51Development Management Document 53SI5DMD50DMD58
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.