Planning application · Enfield
25/01905/FUL.
69 Barrowell Green London N21 3AU
Full / Other Planning at 69 Barrowell Green London N21 3AU, received 28 May 2025 — refused on 15 Aug 2025 (delegated, Nurgul Kinli).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
15 Aug 2025
11 wks
Decision time
3 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
11
Documents
11 linked
0
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?
Conversion of dwelling house to 4x self-contained flats, including basement expansion, ground, first and loft level rear extensions, extension of roof to form gable and front roof light (RETROSPECTIVE).
Reference
25/01905/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N21 3AU
Ward
Council
Received
28 May 2025
Validated
20 Jun 2025
Target date
15 Aug 2025
Decision date
15 Aug 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
25/01905/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N21 3AU
Ward
Council
Received
28 May 2025
Validated
20 Jun 2025
Target date
15 Aug 2025
Decision date
15 Aug 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
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 15 Aug 2025, delegated decision by Nurgul Kinli — 11 weeks from submission (3 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
28 May 2025
Application received
20 Jun 2025
Application validated
15 Aug 2025
Statutory target date
15 Aug 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Nurgul Kinli
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
28 May 2025
Application received
20 Jun 2025
Application validated
15 Aug 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
15 Aug 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Nurgul Kinli
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The layout and standard of accommodation for Flats 2 and 4 fail to meet the minimum gross
internal floor area requirements set out in the Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described
Space Standards, resulting in substandard living conditions and contributing to a cramped and
overdeveloped form of development. In addition, the lack of adequate fenestration, particularly at
basement level, results in poor outlook, insufficient daylight and inadequate ventilation, to the
detriment of residential amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DMD6, DMD8 and
DMD9 of the Enfield Development Management Document, Policies of the London Plan, the National
Planning Policy Framework (2024), and the Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described
Space Standards.
2
By reason of its height, bulk, massing, and materials, the development appears visually
prominent, overbearing, and out of keeping with the established rhythm, scale, and character of the
surrounding street scene. It fails to integrate with the host property or respect the local context,
resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to
Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD37, and DMD38 of the Enfield Development Management Document,
Policies D3, D4, and D8 of the London Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
3
The proposed rear extensions, by reason of their siting, depth, and height, would result in an
overbearing and visually intrusive form of development that causes an undue sense of enclosure and
loss of outlook to the adjoining property at No. 71 Barrowell Green, to the detriment of the residential
amenities of that occupier. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policy CP30 and
Policies DMD8, DMD11, and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document.
4
The proposal fails to demonstrate, through a satisfactory site-specific Flood Risk Assessment
and groundwater assessment, that the development - including a basement-level habitable room in an
area at risk of surface water flooding - would be safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk
elsewhere. In the absence of evidence regarding finished floor levels, flood storage compensation,
safe access and egress, and the impact on groundwater flows, the development is contrary to the
National Planning Policy Framework (2024), London Plan Policies SI12 and SI13, and Enfield
Development Management Document Policies DMD59, DMD61, and DMD62.
Dated: 15 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
Nurgul.kinli@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
LC-0425-A Drawing
LC-0425-B Drawing
LC-0425-C Drawing
LC-0425-D Drawing
Planning statement Supporting Information
HIGHWAY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Supporting Information
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT Supporting Information
BASEMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Supporting Information
LC-0425-E Drawing
LC-0425-F Drawing
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 layout and standard of accommodation for Flats 2 and 4 fail to meet the minimum gross
internal floor area requirements set out in the Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described
Space Standards, resulting in substandard living conditions and contributing to a cramped and
overdeveloped form of development. In addition, the lack of adequate fenestration, particularly at
basement level, results in poor outlook, insufficient daylight and inadequate ventilation, to the
detriment of residential amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DMD6, DMD8 and
DMD9 of the Enfield Development Management Document, Policies of the London Plan, the National
Planning Policy Framework (2024), and the Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described
Space Standards.
2
By reason of its height, bulk, massing, and materials, the development appears visually
prominent, overbearing, and out of keeping with the established rhythm, scale, and character of the
surrounding street scene. It fails to integrate with the host property or respect the local context,
resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to
Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD37, and DMD38 of the Enfield Development Management Document,
Policies D3, D4, and D8 of the London Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
3
The proposed rear extensions, by reason of their siting, depth, and height, would result in an
overbearing and visually intrusive form of development that causes an undue sense of enclosure and
loss of outlook to the adjoining property at No. 71 Barrowell Green, to the detriment of the residential
amenities of that occupier. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policy CP30 and
Policies DMD8, DMD11, and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document.
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposal fails to demonstrate, through a satisfactory site-specific Flood Risk Assessment
and groundwater assessment, that the development - including a basement-level habitable room in an
area at risk of surface water flooding - would be safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk
elsewhere. In the absence of evidence regarding finished floor levels, flood storage compensation,
safe access and egress, and the impact on groundwater flows, the development is contrary to the
National Planning Policy Framework (2024), London Plan Policies SI12 and SI13, and Enfield
Development Management Document Policies DMD59, DMD61, and DMD62.
Dated: 15 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
Nurgul.kinli@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
LC-0425-A Drawing
LC-0425-B Drawing
LC-0425-C Drawing
LC-0425-D Drawing
Planning statement Supporting Information
HIGHWAY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Supporting Information
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT Supporting Information
BASEMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Supporting Information
LC-0425-E Drawing
LC-0425-F Drawing
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
DMD6DMD8DMD9NPPFDMD38D8DMD37CP30SI12SI13
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
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.