Planning application · Enfield
25/01484/FUL.
78 South Street Enfield EN3 4LW
Full / Other Planning at 78 South Street Enfield EN3 4LW, received 22 Apr 2025 — refused on 23 Jul 2025 (delegated, Andrew Parker).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
23 Jul 2025
13 wks
Decision time
5 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
9
Documents
9 linked
1
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?
Change of use to a 7-bed HMO - House in multiple occupation (Sui Generis).
Reference
25/01484/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN3 4LW
Ward
Council
Received
22 Apr 2025
Validated
28 May 2025
Target date
23 Jul 2025
Decision date
23 Jul 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
25/01484/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN3 4LW
Ward
Council
Received
22 Apr 2025
Validated
28 May 2025
Target date
23 Jul 2025
Decision date
23 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 23 Jul 2025, delegated decision by Andrew Parker — 13 weeks from submission (5 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
22 Apr 2025
Application received
28 May 2025
Application validated
23 Jul 2025
Statutory target date
23 Jul 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Andrew Parker
22 Apr 2025
Application received
28 May 2025
Application validated
23 Jul 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
23 Jul 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Andrew Parker
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The development would result in a cramped layout for the proposed seven occupiers failing to
provide a satisfactory shared living space and also bedroom accommodation for the occupier of
Bedroom 3, by virtue of the poor outlook and proximity to the communal kitchen and access to the rear
garden. The proposal would therefore be detrimental to the living conditions of future occupiers,
contrary to guidance in 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 DMD5 and DMD8 of the
Development Management Document 2014 and requirements of the London Plan Housing
Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Dated: 23 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
andrew.parker@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
PR-L001 Drawing
PR-P001 Drawing
PR-P002 Drawing
PR-P003 Drawing
PR-P004 Drawing
EX-L001 Drawing
EX-P001 Drawing
EX-P002 Drawing
EX-P003 Drawing
EX-P004 Drawing
EX-E001 Drawing
EX-E001 Drawing
Highway Safety Impact Assessment Supporting Information
HMO Management Plan Supporting Information
Design and Access Statement Supporting Information
Additional Information
1 There is no record of any planning history for the use of the premises as a 6-bedroom HMO, or
the outbuildings to the rear. The plans submitted with this application fail to indicate the precise nature
of the existing use or indicate its proposed use. In the absence of any certificate of lawfulness or
planning permission the use of the premises and the built development could be unlawful. The
applicant is therefore advised to submit a certificate of lawfulness to the LPA should it be considered
that the development is immune from enforcement action being taken.
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 would result in a cramped layout for the proposed seven occupiers failing to
provide a satisfactory shared living space and also bedroom accommodation for the occupier of
Bedroom 3, by virtue of the poor outlook and proximity to the communal kitchen and access to the rear
garden. The proposal would therefore be detrimental to the living conditions of future occupiers,
contrary to guidance in 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 DMD5 and DMD8 of the
Development Management Document 2014 and requirements of the London Plan Housing
Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Dated: 23 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
andrew.parker@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
PR-L001 Drawing
PR-P001 Drawing
PR-P002 Drawing
PR-P003 Drawing
PR-P004 Drawing
EX-L001 Drawing
EX-P001 Drawing
EX-P002 Drawing
EX-P003 Drawing
EX-P004 Drawing
EX-E001 Drawing
EX-E001 Drawing
Highway Safety Impact Assessment Supporting Information
HMO Management Plan Supporting Information
Design and Access Statement Supporting Information
Additional Information
1 There is no record of any planning history for the use of the premises as a 6-bedroom HMO, or
the outbuildings to the rear. The plans submitted with this application fail to indicate the precise nature
of the existing use or indicate its proposed use. In the absence of any certificate of lawfulness or
planning permission the use of the premises and the built development could be unlawful. The
applicant is therefore advised to submit a certificate of lawfulness to the LPA should it be considered
that the development is immune from enforcement action being taken.
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 4DMD5DMD8NPPF
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.