Planning application · Enfield
25/03639/FUL.
583A Hertford Road Enfield EN3 5UL
Full / Other Planning at 583A Hertford Road Enfield EN3 5UL, received 21 Oct 2025 — refused on 21 Jan 2026 (delegated, Eric Thompson).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
21 Jan 2026
13 wks
Decision time
5 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
16
Documents
16 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?
First floor rear extension for internal reconfiguration of unit from one-bedroom flat into a two-bedroom dwelling.
Reference
25/03639/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
21 Oct 2025
Validated
10 Nov 2025
Target date
5 Jan 2026
Decision date
21 Jan 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
Council register
Reference
25/03639/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
21 Oct 2025
Validated
10 Nov 2025
Target date
5 Jan 2026
Decision date
21 Jan 2026
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 21 Jan 2026, delegated decision by Eric Thompson — 13 weeks from submission (5 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
21 Oct 2025
Application received
10 Nov 2025
Application validated
5 Jan 2026
Statutory target date
21 Jan 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Eric Thompson
21 Oct 2025
Application received
10 Nov 2025
Application validated
5 Jan 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
21 Jan 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Eric Thompson
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed first floor rear extension, by reason of its height, depth, and two storey form,
would result in an overly bulky and visually intrusive addition that is out of keeping with the established
pattern of development. The proposal would remove the existing stepped relationship, fail to remain
subordinate to the host building, and appear unduly dominant in rear views. As such, the development
would harm the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area, contrary to
Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policies D3, D4 of the London Plan
(2024), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD11 and
DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
2
The proposed first floor rear extension, by reason of its height, depth, and siting close to the
shared boundary, would project beyond a neighbouring rear facing habitable room window and would
intercept the 30 degree line taken from its midpoint. This would result in an unacceptable loss of
daylight, sunlight, and outlook and sense of enclosure. As such, the proposal would result in an
unneighbourly form of development, contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework
(2024), Policies D3, D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CP4 and CP30 of the Enfield Core
Strategy (2010), and Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD11 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development
Management Document (2014).
3
The proposed development would result in substandard living conditions for future occupiers.
By reason of the internal layout and the measures required to protect privacy of the neighbouring
properties, the accommodation would provide a poor quality of outlook and ventilation and limited
natural light to habitable spaces. As a result, the proposal would fail to achieve a high standard of
residential amenity and design quality, contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (2021), Policies D3, D6 of the London Plan (2024), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core
Strategy (2010), Policies DMD6, DMD8 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management
Document (2014), and the London Housing Design Standards LPG (2023).
Dated: 21 January 2026
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
eric.thompson@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
A101 R04 Drawing
A201 R03 Drawing
A301 R04 Drawing
Design & Access Statement Supporting Information
A103 R04 Drawing
A102 R04 Drawing
A203 R04 Drawing
A202 R04 Drawing
A104 R04 Drawing
A204 R04 Drawing
A204 Drawing
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 proposed first floor rear extension, by reason of its height, depth, and two storey form,
would result in an overly bulky and visually intrusive addition that is out of keeping with the established
pattern of development. The proposal would remove the existing stepped relationship, fail to remain
subordinate to the host building, and appear unduly dominant in rear views. As such, the development
would harm the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area, contrary to
Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policies D3, D4 of the London Plan
(2024), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD11 and
DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
2
The proposed first floor rear extension, by reason of its height, depth, and siting close to the
shared boundary, would project beyond a neighbouring rear facing habitable room window and would
intercept the 30 degree line taken from its midpoint. This would result in an unacceptable loss of
daylight, sunlight, and outlook and sense of enclosure. As such, the proposal would result in an
unneighbourly form of development, contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework
(2024), Policies D3, D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CP4 and CP30 of the Enfield Core
Strategy (2010), and Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD11 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development
Management Document (2014).
3
The proposed development would result in substandard living conditions for future occupiers.
By reason of the internal layout and the measures required to protect privacy of the neighbouring
properties, the accommodation would provide a poor quality of outlook and ventilation and limited
natural light to habitable spaces. As a result, the proposal would fail to achieve a high standard of
residential amenity and design quality, contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (2021), Policies D3, D6 of the London Plan (2024), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core
Strategy (2010), Policies DMD6, DMD8 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management
Document (2014), and the London Housing Design Standards LPG (2023).
Dated: 21 January 2026
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
eric.thompson@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
A101 R04 Drawing
A201 R03 Drawing
A301 R04 Drawing
Design & Access Statement Supporting Information
A103 R04 Drawing
A102 R04 Drawing
A203 R04 Drawing
A202 R04 Drawing
A104 R04 Drawing
A204 R04 Drawing
A204 Drawing
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
National Planning Policy Framework 12D3D4CP30DMD6DMD8DMD11DMD37NPPFCP4D6
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.