Planning application · Enfield
25/00552/FUL.
Part Ground Floor Of 135 - 137 And 135 Bowes Road London N13 4SE
Full / Other Planning at Part Ground Floor Of 135 - 137 And 135 Bowes Road London N13 4SE, received 13 Feb 2025 — refused on 28 Apr 2025 (delegated, Andrew Parker).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
28 Apr 2025
11 wks
Decision time
3 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
26
Documents
26 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?
The council record carries no proposal text.
Reference
25/00552/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N13 4SE
Ward
Council
Received
13 Feb 2025
Validated
3 Mar 2025
Target date
28 Apr 2025
Decision date
28 Apr 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
25/00552/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N13 4SE
Ward
Council
Received
13 Feb 2025
Validated
3 Mar 2025
Target date
28 Apr 2025
Decision date
28 Apr 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
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 28 Apr 2025, delegated decision by Andrew Parker — 11 weeks from submission (3 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
13 Feb 2025
Application received
3 Mar 2025
Application validated
28 Apr 2025
Statutory target date
28 Apr 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Andrew Parker
13 Feb 2025
Application received
3 Mar 2025
Application validated
28 Apr 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
28 Apr 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Andrew Parker
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The development results in the unacceptable intensification of the use of the site, and the flats
by reason of their substandard Gross Internal Area, insufficient provision of private amenity space,
inadequately sized bedrooms; poor quality, lack of shared living space; privacy, outlook, natural light,
ventilation and storage fails to provide an acceptable standard of living conditions for the occupiers of
the development. The proposal is contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework
2024; policy D6 of The London Plan 2021; Policy 4 of the Core Strategy 2010 and Policies DMD 5 and
8 of the Development Management Document 2014.
2
The development, by reason of the substantially increased number of occupants, would result
in an over intensive use of the building which would give rise to additional noise, disturbance and
activity at unsociable hours, more rubbish to be collected, that would detract from the character of the
surrounding area, and from the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024; Policies D6 and D14
of the London Plan 2021; Policies CP30 and CP32 of the Core Strategy 2010 and policies DMD5,
DMD6, DMD8, DMD37 and DMD68 of the Development Management Document 2014.
3
The 9 flats are reliant upon an unauthorised second floor rear addition to the property and by
reason of its siting, size, bulk, and design results in an overly dominant and discordant addition that
fails to satisfactorily align and relate to the existing building and results in the unacceptable infilling of
gaps between outriggers which detracts from the character and appearance of this property and the
uniformity of this row of terraced properties to the detriment of the visual amenities of the street scene
and the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning
Policy Framework 2024; Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021; Core Policy 30 of the Council's Core
Strategy and policies DMD8, DMD13, and DMD 37 of the Council's Development Management
Document 2014.
4
In the absence of a lawful second floor addition to No.137 there is no guarantee that this would
remain in perpetuity and as such the unauthorised second floor rear additions to No.135 by reason of
its siting, excessive depth and height along the common boundary would have an overbearing impact
on the amenity of the adjoining occupiers of this property in terms of sense of enclosure, loss of
outlook and light. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy
Framework 2024; Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policies
DMD8, DMD11 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document 2014.
5
The development fails to provide dedicated storage space which could be used for waste
management within the confines of the building and no dedicated external storage area for refuse. The
proposal would therefore fail to support adequate waste management and the intensification of the use
of the site would likely give rise to waste on the adjacent highway to the detriment to the neighbouring
environment. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 12 of the NPPF (2024), policy D3 of the
London Plan 2021; Policies CP4and CP30 of the Council's Core Strategy Policies DMD47 and DMD57
of the Development Management Document and the Council's Waste and Recycling Storage Planning
Guidance.
6
The development, in the absence of adequate cycle storage, fails to provide secure,
convenient and adequate facilities for all types of bicycles for future occupiers and is contrary to the
aims of the London Plan which aim to promote the use of sustainable modes of transport, reduce car
use, promote active modes of transportation and public transport use. The proposal is therefore
contrary to Sections 2 and 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024); Policies T5 and T6 of
the London Plan 2024; Policy CP25 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010, Policies DMD45 and DMD47 of
the Enfield Development Management Document 2014.
Dated: 28 April 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
andrew.parker@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
P201 Pre-Existing section Drawing
P302 Pre Existing Elevation Drawing
P303 Existing Elevation Drawing
P101 Pre existing Layout First Floor Drawing
P104 Roof Plan Drawing
Flood risk Assessment Supporting Information
Highway Impact Assessment Supporting Information
P301 Pre Existing Elevation Drawing
P104 Existing Layout Ground Floor Plan Drawing
P304 Existing Side Eleveation Drawing
102 Pre existing Layout Second Floor Drawing
Location Plan Drawing
P099 Existing Block Plan Drawing
Fire Statement Supporting Information
Energy Statement Supporting Information
Planning Statement Supporting Information
P107 Existing Layout Drawing
P106 Existing Layout Seconf Floor Drawing
P104 Pre-existing Layout Roof Drawing
P105 Eisting Layout First Floor Drawing
P202 Existing Sections A-A Drawing
P301 Pre existing Elevations Drawing
P100 Pre- existing Layout Ground Floor Plan Drawing
Additional Information
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 development results in the unacceptable intensification of the use of the site, and the flats
by reason of their substandard Gross Internal Area, insufficient provision of private amenity space,
inadequately sized bedrooms; poor quality, lack of shared living space; privacy, outlook, natural light,
ventilation and storage fails to provide an acceptable standard of living conditions for the occupiers of
the development. The proposal is contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework
2024; policy D6 of The London Plan 2021; Policy 4 of the Core Strategy 2010 and Policies DMD 5 and
8 of the Development Management Document 2014.
2
The development, by reason of the substantially increased number of occupants, would result
in an over intensive use of the building which would give rise to additional noise, disturbance and
activity at unsociable hours, more rubbish to be collected, that would detract from the character of the
surrounding area, and from the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024; Policies D6 and D14
of the London Plan 2021; Policies CP30 and CP32 of the Core Strategy 2010 and policies DMD5,
DMD6, DMD8, DMD37 and DMD68 of the Development Management Document 2014.
3
The 9 flats are reliant upon an unauthorised second floor rear addition to the property and by
reason of its siting, size, bulk, and design results in an overly dominant and discordant addition that
fails to satisfactorily align and relate to the existing building and results in the unacceptable infilling of
gaps between outriggers which detracts from the character and appearance of this property and the
uniformity of this row of terraced properties to the detriment of the visual amenities of the street scene
and the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning
Policy Framework 2024; Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021; Core Policy 30 of the Council's Core
Strategy and policies DMD8, DMD13, and DMD 37 of the Council's Development Management
Document 2014.
Show all 6 rows
4
In the absence of a lawful second floor addition to No.137 there is no guarantee that this would
remain in perpetuity and as such the unauthorised second floor rear additions to No.135 by reason of
its siting, excessive depth and height along the common boundary would have an overbearing impact
on the amenity of the adjoining occupiers of this property in terms of sense of enclosure, loss of
outlook and light. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy
Framework 2024; Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policies
DMD8, DMD11 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document 2014.
5
The development fails to provide dedicated storage space which could be used for waste
management within the confines of the building and no dedicated external storage area for refuse. The
proposal would therefore fail to support adequate waste management and the intensification of the use
of the site would likely give rise to waste on the adjacent highway to the detriment to the neighbouring
environment. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 12 of the NPPF (2024), policy D3 of the
London Plan 2021; Policies CP4and CP30 of the Council's Core Strategy Policies DMD47 and DMD57
of the Development Management Document and the Council's Waste and Recycling Storage Planning
Guidance.
6
The development, in the absence of adequate cycle storage, fails to provide secure,
convenient and adequate facilities for all types of bicycles for future occupiers and is contrary to the
aims of the London Plan which aim to promote the use of sustainable modes of transport, reduce car
use, promote active modes of transportation and public transport use. The proposal is therefore
contrary to Sections 2 and 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024); Policies T5 and T6 of
the London Plan 2024; Policy CP25 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010, Policies DMD45 and DMD47 of
the Enfield Development Management Document 2014.
Dated: 28 April 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
andrew.parker@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
P201 Pre-Existing section Drawing
P302 Pre Existing Elevation Drawing
P303 Existing Elevation Drawing
P101 Pre existing Layout First Floor Drawing
P104 Roof Plan Drawing
Flood risk Assessment Supporting Information
Highway Impact Assessment Supporting Information
P301 Pre Existing Elevation Drawing
P104 Existing Layout Ground Floor Plan Drawing
P304 Existing Side Eleveation Drawing
102 Pre existing Layout Second Floor Drawing
Location Plan Drawing
P099 Existing Block Plan Drawing
Fire Statement Supporting Information
Energy Statement Supporting Information
Planning Statement Supporting Information
P107 Existing Layout Drawing
P106 Existing Layout Seconf Floor Drawing
P104 Pre-existing Layout Roof Drawing
P105 Eisting Layout First Floor Drawing
P202 Existing Sections A-A Drawing
P301 Pre existing Elevations Drawing
P100 Pre- existing Layout Ground Floor Plan Drawing
Additional Information
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
National Planning Policy Framework 12D6Core Strategy 4DMD5Development Management Document 8NPPFD14CP30CP32DMD6DMD8DMD37DMD68D3Council's Core Strategy 30DMD11DMD47DMD57National Planning Policy Framework 2National Planning Policy Framework 9T5T6CP25DMD45
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.