Planning application · Enfield
25/01885/HOU.
65 Old Park Ridings London N21 2ET
Householder at 65 Old Park Ridings London N21 2ET, received 27 May 2025 — refused on 6 Aug 2025 (delegated, Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
6 Aug 2025
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
16
Documents
16 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?
Single storey rear extension, single storey side to rear extension, front porch, two rear dormers, front roof lights, replacement of all fenestration and rear raised terrace.
Reference
25/01885/HOU
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
27 May 2025
Validated
2 Jun 2025
Target date
28 Jul 2025
Decision date
6 Aug 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
Council register
Reference
25/01885/HOU
Type
Householder
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
27 May 2025
Validated
2 Jun 2025
Target date
28 Jul 2025
Decision date
6 Aug 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 6 Aug 2025, delegated decision by Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
27 May 2025
Application received
2 Jun 2025
Application validated
28 Jul 2025
Statutory target date
6 Aug 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein
27 May 2025
Application received
2 Jun 2025
Application validated
28 Jul 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
6 Aug 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by virtue of the overall design of the front gable end, the installation
of front rooflights, the construction of the front porch, position of the rear dormers and the omission of
the stain glass details would be to the detriment of the dwelling and would neither protect nor enhance
the conservation area. The design of the front gable given the lack of historical evidence, risks
appearing as a non-genuine reinstatement while the front porch would appear as an incongruous
addition that is at odds with the established character of the building and the wider Conservation Area
and the removal of the stain glass would lead to the loss of a significant historic feature. Additionally,
the alterations to the roof would disrupt the established roof form and result in a disproportionate
roofscape representing an incongruous and visually intrusive addition appearance contrary to Section
and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The harm is not
outweighed by any planning benefits, contrary to Sections 12 and 16 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (2024), Policies D3, D4, D5, HC1 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 and CP31 of the Enfield
Core Strategy (2010), DMD6, DMD8, DMD11, DMD13, DMD14, DMD37 and DMD44 of the Enfield
Development Management Document (2014)) and Enfield Heritage Strategy 2019 - 2024 (2019).
Dated: 6 August 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 mahboubeh.bahrami-
jovein@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
EXISTING PLANS & ELEVATIONS L-01 REV A Drawing
Block Plan L-03 REV A Drawing
PROPOSED PLANS & ELEVATIONS L-02 REV B Drawing
existing & proposed section L-04 REV B Drawing
DRAINAGE DRAWINGS Drawing
PROPOSED WINDOWS Drawing
DESIGN AND ACCESS & HERITAGE STATEMENT Additional Information
Additional Information
It is strongly recommended that the applicant seeks pre-application advice prior to any resubmission.
This will provide an opportunity to address the issues raised and ensure any future proposals are better
aligned with planning and conservation policies. Details can be found at:
https://www.enfield.gov.uk/services/planning/planning-pre-application-advice-service
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 development, by virtue of the overall design of the front gable end, the installation
of front rooflights, the construction of the front porch, position of the rear dormers and the omission of
the stain glass details would be to the detriment of the dwelling and would neither protect nor enhance
the conservation area. The design of the front gable given the lack of historical evidence, risks
appearing as a non-genuine reinstatement while the front porch would appear as an incongruous
addition that is at odds with the established character of the building and the wider Conservation Area
and the removal of the stain glass would lead to the loss of a significant historic feature. Additionally,
the alterations to the roof would disrupt the established roof form and result in a disproportionate
roofscape representing an incongruous and visually intrusive addition appearance contrary to Section
and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The harm is not
outweighed by any planning benefits, contrary to Sections 12 and 16 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (2024), Policies D3, D4, D5, HC1 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 and CP31 of the Enfield
Core Strategy (2010), DMD6, DMD8, DMD11, DMD13, DMD14, DMD37 and DMD44 of the Enfield
Development Management Document (2014)) and Enfield Heritage Strategy 2019 - 2024 (2019).
Dated: 6 August 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 mahboubeh.bahrami-
jovein@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
EXISTING PLANS & ELEVATIONS L-01 REV A Drawing
Block Plan L-03 REV A Drawing
PROPOSED PLANS & ELEVATIONS L-02 REV B Drawing
existing & proposed section L-04 REV B Drawing
DRAINAGE DRAWINGS Drawing
PROPOSED WINDOWS Drawing
DESIGN AND ACCESS & HERITAGE STATEMENT Additional Information
Additional Information
It is strongly recommended that the applicant seeks pre-application advice prior to any resubmission.
This will provide an opportunity to address the issues raised and ensure any future proposals are better
aligned with planning and conservation policies. Details can be found at:
https://www.enfield.gov.uk/services/planning/planning-pre-application-advice-service
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
National Planning Policy Framework 12National Planning Policy Framework 16D3D4D5HC1CP30CP31DMD6DMD8DMD11DMD13DMD14DMD37DMD44NPPF
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
2
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
2
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.