Planning application · Enfield
25/02535/FUL.
Full / Other Planning at 185B Town Road London N9 0HL, received 23 Jul 2025 — refused on 26 Sep 2025 (delegated, Allison Russell).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
26 Sep 2025
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
40
Documents
40 linked
—
Objections
not captured
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?
Demolition of existing warehouse and office space and creation of 6x self-contained flats and 1x ground floor commercial unit with associated cycle storage, refuse and parking.
Reference
25/02535/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
23 Jul 2025
Validated
1 Aug 2025
Target date
26 Sep 2025
Decision date
26 Sep 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
Council register
Reference
25/02535/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
23 Jul 2025
Validated
1 Aug 2025
Target date
26 Sep 2025
Decision date
26 Sep 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
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 26 Sep 2025, delegated decision by Allison Russell — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
23 Jul 2025
Application received
1 Aug 2025
Application validated
26 Sep 2025
Statutory target date
26 Sep 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Allison Russell
23 Jul 2025
Application received
1 Aug 2025
Application validated
26 Sep 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
26 Sep 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Allison Russell
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal, by reason of the detailed design, lack of a well designed active ground floor
frontage, materiality and lack of landscaping, would constitute inappropriate vernacular architectural
forms and give rise to a dominant, incongruous form of development. This would appear as unwieldy,
out of proportion and discordant with the established character of the locality, harming the relationship
between properties and pattern of development found locally. The proposal is therefore contrary to the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2024), Policies D1 and D4 of the London Plan (2021),
Policies DMD 6, DMD 8, DMD 11, DMD 13 and DMD 37 of the Development Management Document
(2014) and Policy CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010).
2
The proposed siting of the car parking spaces to the front of the site and double crossover to
the front of the site, would lead to diminished highway, pedestrian and cyclist safety. The scheme is
therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2024) and policies DMD 45,
DMD 46 and DMD 47 of the Development Management Document (2014), Policies CP24 and CP25 of
the Core Strategy (2010) and policies T2, T4, T5 and T6 of the London Plan (2021).
3
The site is located in a high probability flood risk area (Floodzone 3a). The submitted FRA
does not adequately assess the flood risk posed by the development or demonstrate that the proposal
will not pose a risk to life, property or increase flood risk elsewhere. The proposed scheme fails to
appropriately consider and mitigate the risks of flooding from all possible sources and allow for
adequate measures to make the proposed development safe over its lifetime. Therefore, the proposal
is not compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2024), Policies SI 12 and SI 13
of the London Plan (2021), DMD 59, DMD 60, DMD 61, DMD 62 and DMD 63 of the Development
Management Document (2014) and CP21, CP28 and CP29 of the Core Strategy (2010).
Dated: 26 September 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
allison.russell@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
OS Plan Drawing
F707-A-100 Rev A Proposed Site Plan Drawing
F707-A-101 Rev A Proposed Ground Floor Plan Drawing
F707-A-102 Rev B Drawing
F707-A-103 Rev B Proposed Second Floor Plan Rev B Drawing
F707-A-104 Rev B Proposed Third Floor Plan Drawing
F707-A-105 Rev B Proposed Roof Plan Drawing
F707-A-201 Rev B Proposed West Elevation Drawing
F707-A-203 Rev B Proposed East Elevation Drawing
F707-A-300 Rev A Proposed Section AA Drawing
F707-A-301 Rev A Proposed Section BB Drawing
F707-A-302 Rev A Proposed Section CC Drawing
F707-A-303 Rev A Proposed Section DD Drawing
F707-A-200 Rev B Proposed South Elevation Drawing
F707-A-202 Rev B Proposed North Elevation Drawing
Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy Supporting Information
AEG4508_N9_Edmonton_01 Supporting Information
Contaminated Land Statement Supporting Information
Sequential Test Supporting Information
Topographical Survey Supporting Information
Energy Statement Supporting Information
PLANNING, DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT Supporting Information
Transport Statement Supporting Information
DEMOLITION STATEMENT Supporting Information
Archaeological Assessment Supporting Information
SuDS Pro Forma Supporting Information
Planning Fire Safety Strategy Supporting Information
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEAR)
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 proposal, by reason of the detailed design, lack of a well designed active ground floor
frontage, materiality and lack of landscaping, would constitute inappropriate vernacular architectural
forms and give rise to a dominant, incongruous form of development. This would appear as unwieldy,
out of proportion and discordant with the established character of the locality, harming the relationship
between properties and pattern of development found locally. The proposal is therefore contrary to the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2024), Policies D1 and D4 of the London Plan (2021),
Policies DMD 6, DMD 8, DMD 11, DMD 13 and DMD 37 of the Development Management Document
(2014) and Policy CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010).
2
The proposed siting of the car parking spaces to the front of the site and double crossover to
the front of the site, would lead to diminished highway, pedestrian and cyclist safety. The scheme is
therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2024) and policies DMD 45,
DMD 46 and DMD 47 of the Development Management Document (2014), Policies CP24 and CP25 of
the Core Strategy (2010) and policies T2, T4, T5 and T6 of the London Plan (2021).
3
The site is located in a high probability flood risk area (Floodzone 3a). The submitted FRA
does not adequately assess the flood risk posed by the development or demonstrate that the proposal
will not pose a risk to life, property or increase flood risk elsewhere. The proposed scheme fails to
appropriately consider and mitigate the risks of flooding from all possible sources and allow for
adequate measures to make the proposed development safe over its lifetime. Therefore, the proposal
is not compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2024), Policies SI 12 and SI 13
of the London Plan (2021), DMD 59, DMD 60, DMD 61, DMD 62 and DMD 63 of the Development
Management Document (2014) and CP21, CP28 and CP29 of the Core Strategy (2010).
Dated: 26 September 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
allison.russell@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
OS Plan Drawing
F707-A-100 Rev A Proposed Site Plan Drawing
F707-A-101 Rev A Proposed Ground Floor Plan Drawing
F707-A-102 Rev B Drawing
F707-A-103 Rev B Proposed Second Floor Plan Rev B Drawing
F707-A-104 Rev B Proposed Third Floor Plan Drawing
F707-A-105 Rev B Proposed Roof Plan Drawing
F707-A-201 Rev B Proposed West Elevation Drawing
F707-A-203 Rev B Proposed East Elevation Drawing
F707-A-300 Rev A Proposed Section AA Drawing
F707-A-301 Rev A Proposed Section BB Drawing
F707-A-302 Rev A Proposed Section CC Drawing
F707-A-303 Rev A Proposed Section DD Drawing
F707-A-200 Rev B Proposed South Elevation Drawing
F707-A-202 Rev B Proposed North Elevation Drawing
Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy Supporting Information
AEG4508_N9_Edmonton_01 Supporting Information
Contaminated Land Statement Supporting Information
Sequential Test Supporting Information
Topographical Survey Supporting Information
Energy Statement Supporting Information
PLANNING, DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT Supporting Information
Transport Statement Supporting Information
DEMOLITION STATEMENT Supporting Information
Archaeological Assessment Supporting Information
SuDS Pro Forma Supporting Information
Planning Fire Safety Strategy Supporting Information
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEAR)
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
D1D4DMD6DMD8DMD11DMD13DMD37CP30NPPFDMD45DMD46DMD47CP24CP25T2T4T5T6SI12SI13DMD59DMD60DMD61DMD62DMD63CP21CP28CP29
Public response
Comment counts were not captured for this application.
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.