Planning application · Enfield
25/00891/HOU.
Householder at 8 The Ridgeway London N14 6NU, received 7 Mar 2025 — refused on 19 May 2025 (delegated, Jennie Rebairo).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
19 May 2025
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
11
Documents
11 linked
1
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 rear extensions with single storey side extension to garage with hipped roof over and doors, rear dormer and rear outrigger dormer with front rooflights.
Reference
25/00891/HOU
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N14 6NU
Ward
Council
Received
7 Mar 2025
Validated
25 Mar 2025
Target date
20 May 2025
Decision date
19 May 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
25/00891/HOU
Type
Householder
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N14 6NU
Ward
Council
Received
7 Mar 2025
Validated
25 Mar 2025
Target date
20 May 2025
Decision date
19 May 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 19 May 2025, delegated decision by Jennie Rebairo — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
7 Mar 2025
Application received
25 Mar 2025
Application validated
20 May 2025
Statutory target date
19 May 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Jennie Rebairo
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
7 Mar 2025
Application received
25 Mar 2025
Application validated
20 May 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
19 May 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Jennie Rebairo
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed dormer and front rooflights by reason of size, siting and design would appear
bulky and incongruous, and would represent an overly dominant, incongruous and visually intrusive
form of roof addition, out of keeping and character with, and detrimental to, the appearance and
character of the property and Meadway Conservation Area, contrary to London Plan (2021) Policies D3,
D4 and HC1, Core Strategy (2010) Policies CP30 and CP31, Development Management Document
(2014) Policies DMD13, DMD37 and DMD44, National Planning Policy Framework (2024), as well as
having regards to the Meadway Conservation Area Character Appraisal.
2
The single storey rear extension by reason of its size, siting, excessive depth and height would
have an overbearing effect upon the adjoining property No. 6 The Ridgeway, resulting in a loss of light
and outlook detrimental to the amenities of that adjoining property contrary to London Plan (2021)
Policies D3, Core Strategy (2010) Policies CP30, Development Management Document (2014) Polices
DMD8, DMD11 and DMD37 and National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
Dated: 19 May 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
jennie.rebairo@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Location Plan Drawing
25003-001 Drawing
25003-002 Drawing
25003-010 Drawing
25003-012 Drawing
Heritage Statement Supporting Information
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 proposed dormer and front rooflights by reason of size, siting and design would appear
bulky and incongruous, and would represent an overly dominant, incongruous and visually intrusive
form of roof addition, out of keeping and character with, and detrimental to, the appearance and
character of the property and Meadway Conservation Area, contrary to London Plan (2021) Policies D3,
D4 and HC1, Core Strategy (2010) Policies CP30 and CP31, Development Management Document
(2014) Policies DMD13, DMD37 and DMD44, National Planning Policy Framework (2024), as well as
having regards to the Meadway Conservation Area Character Appraisal.
2
The single storey rear extension by reason of its size, siting, excessive depth and height would
have an overbearing effect upon the adjoining property No. 6 The Ridgeway, resulting in a loss of light
and outlook detrimental to the amenities of that adjoining property contrary to London Plan (2021)
Policies D3, Core Strategy (2010) Policies CP30, Development Management Document (2014) Polices
DMD8, DMD11 and DMD37 and National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
Dated: 19 May 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
jennie.rebairo@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Location Plan Drawing
25003-001 Drawing
25003-002 Drawing
25003-010 Drawing
25003-012 Drawing
Heritage Statement Supporting Information
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
D3D4HC1CP30CP31NPPF
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
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.