Planning application · Enfield
25/02959/FUL.
Dessaline Lodge 110 Bush Hill London N21 2BS
Full / Other Planning at Dessaline Lodge 110 Bush Hill London N21 2BS, received 1 Sep 2025 — refused on 3 Dec 2025 (delegated, Jeremiah Ayerh).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
3 Dec 2025
13 wks
Decision time
5 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
14
Documents
14 linked
0
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?
Detached garage to the side with hardstanding and vehicular cross over.
Reference
25/02959/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N21 2BS
Ward
Council
Received
1 Sep 2025
Validated
18 Oct 2025
Target date
13 Dec 2025
Decision date
3 Dec 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
25/02959/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N21 2BS
Ward
Council
Received
1 Sep 2025
Validated
18 Oct 2025
Target date
13 Dec 2025
Decision date
3 Dec 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 3 Dec 2025, delegated decision by Jeremiah Ayerh — 13 weeks from submission (5 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
1 Sep 2025
Application received
18 Oct 2025
Application validated
13 Dec 2025
Statutory target date
3 Dec 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Jeremiah Ayerh
1 Sep 2025
Application received
18 Oct 2025
Application validated
13 Dec 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
3 Dec 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Jeremiah Ayerh
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed garage, by virtue of its excessive height, overall size, roof design, form and bulk
would appear visually intrusive, incongruous, overly dominant and out of keeping with the character
and appearance of the immediate area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 12 of the
National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D4 and D5 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 of
the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and DMD6, DMD12 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development
Management Document (2014).
2
The proposed garage, by virtue of its excessive height, overall size, depth, form, bulk, and
proximity to the flank windows of the flats at No.110 Bush Hill would give rise to an unacceptable loss
of daylight and outlook and would result in an unacceptably heightened sense of enclosure as
perceived from the neighbouring ground floor and first floor flats at No.110 Bush Hill. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D4 and
D5 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and policies DMD6, DMD12
and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 3 December 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
Design and Access Statement Supporting Information
164/110 Rev P10 Drawing
164/120 Rev P10 Drawing
164/001 Rev P10 Drawing
164/115 Rev P10 Drawing
164/100 Rev P10 Drawing
164/010 Rev P10 Drawing
Planning Statement Supporting 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 garage, by virtue of its excessive height, overall size, roof design, form and bulk
would appear visually intrusive, incongruous, overly dominant and out of keeping with the character
and appearance of the immediate area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 12 of the
National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D4 and D5 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 of
the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and DMD6, DMD12 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development
Management Document (2014).
2
The proposed garage, by virtue of its excessive height, overall size, depth, form, bulk, and
proximity to the flank windows of the flats at No.110 Bush Hill would give rise to an unacceptable loss
of daylight and outlook and would result in an unacceptably heightened sense of enclosure as
perceived from the neighbouring ground floor and first floor flats at No.110 Bush Hill. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D4 and
D5 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and policies DMD6, DMD12
and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 3 December 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
Design and Access Statement Supporting Information
164/110 Rev P10 Drawing
164/120 Rev P10 Drawing
164/001 Rev P10 Drawing
164/115 Rev P10 Drawing
164/100 Rev P10 Drawing
164/010 Rev P10 Drawing
Planning Statement Supporting 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
National Planning Policy Framework 12D4D5CP30DMD6DMD12DMD37NPPF
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.