Planning application · Enfield
25/00553/FUL.
Full / Other Planning at 137 Bowes Road London N13 4SE, received 13 Feb 2025 — refused on 29 Apr 2025 (delegated, Michael Kotoh-Mortty).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
29 Apr 2025
11 wks
Decision time
3 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
29
Documents
29 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?
Use of premises as mixed use, involving 9 x self-contained flats (Use Class C3) (RETROSPECTIVE).
Reference
25/00553/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
13 Feb 2025
Validated
3 Mar 2025
Target date
28 Apr 2025
Decision date
29 Apr 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
Council register
Reference
25/00553/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
13 Feb 2025
Validated
3 Mar 2025
Target date
28 Apr 2025
Decision date
29 Apr 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
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 29 Apr 2025, delegated decision by Michael Kotoh-Mortty — 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
29 Apr 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Michael Kotoh-Mortty
13 Feb 2025
Application received
3 Mar 2025
Application validated
28 Apr 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
29 Apr 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Michael Kotoh-Mortty
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The change of use has resulted in the loss of a property that would be more appropriately
occupied as a single family dwelling house and undermines the need to ensure that a range of housing
types are available within the Borough with particular regard to the need to provide appropriate large
family sized accommodation. The retrospective flat conversion is thereby contrary to Policies DMD3
and DMD4 of the Development Management Document (2014), CP5 and CP30 of the Core Strategy
(2010) and H1 of the London Plan (2021) as well as the advice contained within the NPPF (2021) and
the Enfield Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2015).
2
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 development 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 DMD 8 of the Development Management Document 2014.
3
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).
4
The retrospective development with a footprint that is hard on 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 overlooking. 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 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 has
been indicated on the submitted plans. 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 development 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 aims 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: 29 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 michael.kotoh-
mortty@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
P105 Drawing
P106 Drawing
P107 Drawing
Planning Statement Supporting Information
P202 Drawing
P304 Drawing
P103 Drawing
P109 Drawing
P108 Drawing
P101 Drawing
P301 Drawing
P100 Drawing
P104 Drawing
P102 Drawing
P201 Drawing
Location Plan Drawing
Flood Risk Assessment Supporting Information
Fire Statement Supporting Information
P303 Drawing
P302 Drawing
P099 Drawing
Highways Assessment Supporting Information
Highways Proforma Supporting Information
Energy Statement Supporting Information
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 change of use has resulted in the loss of a property that would be more appropriately
occupied as a single family dwelling house and undermines the need to ensure that a range of housing
types are available within the Borough with particular regard to the need to provide appropriate large
family sized accommodation. The retrospective flat conversion is thereby contrary to Policies DMD3
and DMD4 of the Development Management Document (2014), CP5 and CP30 of the Core Strategy
(2010) and H1 of the London Plan (2021) as well as the advice contained within the NPPF (2021) and
the Enfield Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2015).
2
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 development 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 DMD 8 of the Development Management Document 2014.
3
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).
Show all 6 rows
4
The retrospective development with a footprint that is hard on 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 overlooking. 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 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 has
been indicated on the submitted plans. 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 development 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 aims 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: 29 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 michael.kotoh-
mortty@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
P105 Drawing
P106 Drawing
P107 Drawing
Planning Statement Supporting Information
P202 Drawing
P304 Drawing
P103 Drawing
P109 Drawing
P108 Drawing
P101 Drawing
P301 Drawing
P100 Drawing
P104 Drawing
P102 Drawing
P201 Drawing
Location Plan Drawing
Flood Risk Assessment Supporting Information
Fire Statement Supporting Information
P303 Drawing
P302 Drawing
P099 Drawing
Highways Assessment Supporting Information
Highways Proforma Supporting Information
Energy Statement Supporting Information
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
DMD3DMD4CP5CP30H1NPPFNational Planning Policy Framework 12D6Core Strategy 4DMD5DMD8D14CP32DMD6DMD37DMD68D3DMD47DMD57National 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.