Planning Atlas
Planning AtlasEnfieldTown ward25/01327/FUL
Planning application · Enfield

25/01327/FUL.

56B-56E Tenniswood Road Enfield EN1 3LJ

Full / Other Planning at 56B-56E Tenniswood Road Enfield EN1 3LJ, received 7 Apr 2025 — refused on 18 Jul 2025 (delegated, Jeremiah Ayerh).

EnfieldTownEN1 3LJ25/01327/FUL
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
18 Jul 2025
15 wks
Decision time
7 wks over the 8-week target
Conditions
not captured
12
Documents
12 linked
6
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 an additional storey to provide 2x self contained flats together with side extension.

Reference
25/01327/FUL
Type
Full
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN1 3LJ
Ward
Council
Received
7 Apr 2025
Validated
23 May 2025
Target date
18 Jul 2025
Decision date
18 Jul 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Reference
25/01327/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN1 3LJ
Ward
Council
Received
7 Apr 2025
Validated
23 May 2025
Target date
18 Jul 2025
Decision date
18 Jul 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Documents

What was filed?

Document
Published
View
Report
23 Jul 2025
Decision Notice
18 Jul 2025
APPLICATION FORM
30 May 2025
SUDS PROFORMA
30 May 2025
CIL FORM 1
15 May 2025
THE LOCATION PLAN
15 May 2025
BLOCK PLAN OF THE SITE
15 May 2025
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS
15 May 2025
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS
15 May 2025
SUDS SUPPORTING INFORMATION
15 May 2025
Report
23 Jul 2025
Decision Notice
18 Jul 2025
APPLICATION FORM
30 May 2025
Show all 10 rows
SUDS PROFORMA
30 May 2025
CIL FORM 1
15 May 2025
THE LOCATION PLAN
15 May 2025
BLOCK PLAN OF THE SITE
15 May 2025
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS
15 May 2025
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS
15 May 2025
SUDS SUPPORTING INFORMATION
15 May 2025

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 18 Jul 2025, delegated decision by Jeremiah Ayerh — 15 weeks from submission (7 over the 8-week target).

Timeline

Date
Event
7 Apr 2025
Application received
23 May 2025
Application validated
18 Jul 2025
Statutory target date
18 Jul 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Jeremiah Ayerh
7 Apr 2025
Application received
23 May 2025
Application validated
18 Jul 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
18 Jul 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Jeremiah Ayerh

Why it was refused

Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of its scale, bulk, and design, would result in an overly dominant and incongruous addition to the host property. It would fail to integrate with its surroundings and would appear as a discordant and unsympathetic form of development, out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The harm identified would not be outweighed by the public benefits of delivering additional residential accommodation. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DMD13 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document, Policies CP30 and CP31 of the Core Strategy, Policies D4 and D5 of the London Plan (2021), and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). Dated: 18 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 Jeremiah.ayerh@enfield.gov.uk. List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice: Title/Number Version TYPE 132/24 1 Drawing 132/24 4 Drawing 132/24 2 Drawing 132/24 3 Drawing Energy Statement Supporting Information Highway Impact Assessment 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 proposed development, by reason of its scale, bulk, and design, would result in an overly dominant and incongruous addition to the host property. It would fail to integrate with its surroundings and would appear as a discordant and unsympathetic form of development, out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The harm identified would not be outweighed by the public benefits of delivering additional residential accommodation. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DMD13 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document, Policies CP30 and CP31 of the Core Strategy, Policies D4 and D5 of the London Plan (2021), and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). Dated: 18 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 Jeremiah.ayerh@enfield.gov.uk. List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice: Title/Number Version TYPE 132/24 1 Drawing 132/24 4 Drawing 132/24 2 Drawing 132/24 3 Drawing Energy Statement Supporting Information Highway Impact Assessment 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
DMD13DMD37CP30CP31D4D5NPPF

Public response

Measure
Count
Objections
6
In support
0
Total comments
6
Objections
6
In support
0
Total comments
6
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.