Planning application · Enfield
25/04159/HOU.
31 Boleyn Avenue Enfield EN1 4HR
Householder at 31 Boleyn Avenue Enfield EN1 4HR, received 3 Dec 2025 — refused on 13 Feb 2026 (delegated, Aaron Hawkins).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
13 Feb 2026
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
13
Documents
13 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.
Reference
25/04159/HOU
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN1 4HR
Ward
Council
Received
3 Dec 2025
Validated
22 Dec 2025
Target date
16 Feb 2026
Decision date
13 Feb 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
25/04159/HOU
Type
Householder
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN1 4HR
Ward
Council
Received
3 Dec 2025
Validated
22 Dec 2025
Target date
16 Feb 2026
Decision date
13 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 13 Feb 2026, delegated decision by Aaron Hawkins — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
3 Dec 2025
Application received
22 Dec 2025
Application validated
16 Feb 2026
Statutory target date
13 Feb 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Aaron Hawkins
3 Dec 2025
Application received
22 Dec 2025
Application validated
16 Feb 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
13 Feb 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Aaron Hawkins
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed first floor extension by reason of its size and flat roof design, would be an
obtrusive and incongruous form of development that would result in harm to the character and
appearance of the subject dwelling and would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the immediately
surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010)
and policies DMD11, DMD13 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document (2014)
2
The proposed first floor rear extension by reason of its size, siting, depth, and height, would
have an overbearing effect upon the adjoining property Number 33 Boleyn Avenue, and would result in
a loss of light, outlook, and a heightened sense of enclosure, detrimental to the amenities of the
neighbouring occupier. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy
(2010), and policies DMD11 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document (2014)
Dated: 13 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
aaron.hawkins@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Location Plan Drawing
EXG LOC PLAN 0 Drawing
EXG PLANS 1 Drawing
EXG ELEV 2 Drawing
SECTION N 6 Drawing
PRO PLANS 3 Drawing
PRO ELEV 4 Drawing
SECTION K Drawing
Cover Letter Supporting Information
Block Plan 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 proposed first floor extension by reason of its size and flat roof design, would be an
obtrusive and incongruous form of development that would result in harm to the character and
appearance of the subject dwelling and would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the immediately
surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010)
and policies DMD11, DMD13 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document (2014)
2
The proposed first floor rear extension by reason of its size, siting, depth, and height, would
have an overbearing effect upon the adjoining property Number 33 Boleyn Avenue, and would result in
a loss of light, outlook, and a heightened sense of enclosure, detrimental to the amenities of the
neighbouring occupier. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy
(2010), and policies DMD11 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document (2014)
Dated: 13 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
aaron.hawkins@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Location Plan Drawing
EXG LOC PLAN 0 Drawing
EXG PLANS 1 Drawing
EXG ELEV 2 Drawing
SECTION N 6 Drawing
PRO PLANS 3 Drawing
PRO ELEV 4 Drawing
SECTION K Drawing
Cover Letter Supporting Information
Block Plan 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
CP30DMD11DMD13DMD37
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.