Planning application · Enfield
25/03725/FUL.
7 Keswick Drive Enfield EN3 6NZ
Full / Other Planning at 7 Keswick Drive Enfield EN3 6NZ, received 28 Oct 2025 — refused on 14 Jan 2026 (delegated, Edith Leung).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
14 Jan 2026
11 wks
Decision time
3 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
18
Documents
18 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?
Change of use from Use Class C3 (dwelling house) to Use Class Sui Generis (HMO-house in multiple occupation) for 8 people including extension of roof to side to form gable, rear dormer and front roof lights.
Reference
25/03725/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN3 6NZ
Ward
Council
Received
28 Oct 2025
Validated
19 Nov 2025
Target date
14 Jan 2026
Decision date
14 Jan 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
25/03725/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN3 6NZ
Ward
Council
Received
28 Oct 2025
Validated
19 Nov 2025
Target date
14 Jan 2026
Decision date
14 Jan 2026
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 14 Jan 2026, delegated decision by Edith Leung — 11 weeks from submission (3 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
28 Oct 2025
Application received
19 Nov 2025
Application validated
14 Jan 2026
Statutory target date
14 Jan 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Edith Leung
28 Oct 2025
Application received
19 Nov 2025
Application validated
14 Jan 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
14 Jan 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Edith Leung
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of its detailed design, bulk, and siting, including the
overly large rear dormer, would appear visually intrusive, incongruous, and out of keeping with the
character and appearance of the host property and the wider area. In addition, the use of the property
as a large HMO accommodating up to eight occupants would significantly intensify activity compared
to a single-family dwelling, resulting in increased comings and goings, noise, and disturbance that
would harm the established residential character of this densely built-up locality. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D3, D4,
D5, and D8 of the London Plan (2021), Core Policies CP5 and CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy
(2010), and Policies DMD5, DMD6, DMD8, DMD13, and DMD37 of the Enfield Development
Management Document (2014).
2
The development, by virtue of its scale and intensity of occupation, would result in
unacceptable levels of noise and general disturbance, harming the amenities of neighbouring
residential occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DMD 8 of the Enfield Development
Management Document (2014) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
Dated: 14 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
edith.leung@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
45-200_Rev1 Drawing
45-300_Rev1 Drawing
loft floor plan, not numbered Drawing
45-500_Rev1 Drawing
45-200 Drawing
45-02 Drawing
45-01_Rev1 Drawing
45-03 Drawing
45-100 Drawing
45-201 Drawing
45-01 Drawing
45-500 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 development, by reason of its detailed design, bulk, and siting, including the
overly large rear dormer, would appear visually intrusive, incongruous, and out of keeping with the
character and appearance of the host property and the wider area. In addition, the use of the property
as a large HMO accommodating up to eight occupants would significantly intensify activity compared
to a single-family dwelling, resulting in increased comings and goings, noise, and disturbance that
would harm the established residential character of this densely built-up locality. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D3, D4,
D5, and D8 of the London Plan (2021), Core Policies CP5 and CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy
(2010), and Policies DMD5, DMD6, DMD8, DMD13, and DMD37 of the Enfield Development
Management Document (2014).
2
The development, by virtue of its scale and intensity of occupation, would result in
unacceptable levels of noise and general disturbance, harming the amenities of neighbouring
residential occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DMD 8 of the Enfield Development
Management Document (2014) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
Dated: 14 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
edith.leung@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
45-200_Rev1 Drawing
45-300_Rev1 Drawing
loft floor plan, not numbered Drawing
45-500_Rev1 Drawing
45-200 Drawing
45-02 Drawing
45-01_Rev1 Drawing
45-03 Drawing
45-100 Drawing
45-201 Drawing
45-01 Drawing
45-500 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 12D8CP5CP30DMD37NPPFDMD8
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
1
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
1
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.