Planning application · Enfield
25/04102/HOU.
9 Hartland Close London N21 2BG
Householder at 9 Hartland Close London N21 2BG, received 27 Nov 2025 — refused on 20 Feb 2026 (delegated, Eric Thompson).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
20 Feb 2026
12 wks
Decision time
4 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?
Two storey rear extension, first floor side extension with conversion of double garage into single garage and habitable room involving changes to front fenestration.
Reference
25/04102/HOU
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N21 2BG
Ward
Council
Received
27 Nov 2025
Validated
13 Jan 2026
Target date
10 Mar 2026
Decision date
20 Feb 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
25/04102/HOU
Type
Householder
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N21 2BG
Ward
Council
Received
27 Nov 2025
Validated
13 Jan 2026
Target date
10 Mar 2026
Decision date
20 Feb 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 20 Feb 2026, delegated decision by Eric Thompson — 12 weeks from submission (4 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
27 Nov 2025
Application received
13 Jan 2026
Application validated
10 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
20 Feb 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Eric Thompson
27 Nov 2025
Application received
13 Jan 2026
Application validated
10 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
20 Feb 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Eric Thompson
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal would remove the mock Tudor detailing from the principal elevation and replace it
with a plain rendered finish. The mock Tudor treatment is a repeated and defining feature of the street
frontage and contributes to its established character and visual cohesion. Its removal would result in a
simplified and incongruous frontage that fails to respect the prevailing pattern of development, causing
harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal therefore conflicts with Section 12 of
the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policy
CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and Policy DMD 37 of the Enfield Development Management
Document (2014).
2
The proposed development would breach the 30 degree guideline when assessed from the sole
first floor habitable room window of the adjoining property at No 10 Hartland Close. Given the limited
separation distance of approximately 2 metres, the extension would materially reduce daylight and
outlook and create an overbearing sense of enclosure. The proposal would therefore cause
unacceptable harm to residential amenity, contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (2024), Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core
Strategy (2010), and Policies DMD6, DMD8 and DMD11 of the Enfield Development Management
Document (2014).
Dated: 20 February 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
SIT001 Drawing
PRE003 A Drawing
PRP002 A Drawing
PRE001 A Drawing
PRP001 A Drawing
PRP003 A Drawing
Flood Risk Assessment Supporting Information
PRE002 A Drawing
Additional Information
APPEAL
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 would remove the mock Tudor detailing from the principal elevation and replace it
with a plain rendered finish. The mock Tudor treatment is a repeated and defining feature of the street
frontage and contributes to its established character and visual cohesion. Its removal would result in a
simplified and incongruous frontage that fails to respect the prevailing pattern of development, causing
harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal therefore conflicts with Section 12 of
the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policy
CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and Policy DMD 37 of the Enfield Development Management
Document (2014).
2
The proposed development would breach the 30 degree guideline when assessed from the sole
first floor habitable room window of the adjoining property at No 10 Hartland Close. Given the limited
separation distance of approximately 2 metres, the extension would materially reduce daylight and
outlook and create an overbearing sense of enclosure. The proposal would therefore cause
unacceptable harm to residential amenity, contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (2024), Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core
Strategy (2010), and Policies DMD6, DMD8 and DMD11 of the Enfield Development Management
Document (2014).
Dated: 20 February 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
SIT001 Drawing
PRE003 A Drawing
PRP002 A Drawing
PRE001 A Drawing
PRP001 A Drawing
PRP003 A Drawing
Flood Risk Assessment Supporting Information
PRE002 A Drawing
Additional Information
APPEAL
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 12D3D4CP30DMD37NPPFDMD6DMD8DMD11
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.