Planning application · Enfield
25/04237/HOU.
9 Queen Annes Grove Enfield EN1 2JP
Householder at 9 Queen Annes Grove Enfield EN1 2JP, received 8 Dec 2025 — refused on 10 Feb 2026 (delegated, Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
10 Feb 2026
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
17
Documents
17 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?
Part two storey, part single storey rear extension, two storey side extension, front and rear dormers and front porch, vehicular crossover and associated hardstanding.
Reference
25/04237/HOU
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN1 2JP
Ward
Council
Received
8 Dec 2025
Validated
18 Dec 2025
Target date
12 Feb 2026
Decision date
10 Feb 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
25/04237/HOU
Type
Householder
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN1 2JP
Ward
Council
Received
8 Dec 2025
Validated
18 Dec 2025
Target date
12 Feb 2026
Decision date
10 Feb 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
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 10 Feb 2026, delegated decision by Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
8 Dec 2025
Application received
18 Dec 2025
Application validated
12 Feb 2026
Statutory target date
10 Feb 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein
8 Dec 2025
Application received
18 Dec 2025
Application validated
12 Feb 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
10 Feb 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed side, rear and roof extensions, by virtue of their detailed design, scale, siting,
form, together with the removal of the visual break between the subject site and No. 11 Queen Annes
Grove, would give rise to an awkward, incongruous, bulky and overbearing form of over-development
that would unbalance and detract from the character and of Queen Annes Grove, which would harmfully
erode the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would be detrimental to the appearance of
the street scene at this location. The proposals are thereby contrary to Policies CP30 of the Core
Strategy (2010), D4 of the London Plan (2021), DMD6, DMD11, DMD13, DMD14 and DMD37 of the
Development Management Document (2014), as well as the guidance contained within the NPPF
(2024).
2
In the absence of supporting evidence to demonstrate an assessment of the impact of the
proposed crossover on the street tree, the Local Planning Authority cannot support the introduction of a
crossover. The removal of this tree, or infliction of damage to it, to facilitate the proposed new crossover
would be contrary to Policy DMD 80 of the Development Management Document (2014)
Dated: 10 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 mahboubeh.bahrami-
jovein@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
DEC25_9QAG_03 Drawing
DEC25_9QAG_04 Drawing
DEC25_9QAG_05 Drawing
DEC25_9QAG_09 Drawing
DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT Additional Information
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 side, rear and roof extensions, by virtue of their detailed design, scale, siting,
form, together with the removal of the visual break between the subject site and No. 11 Queen Annes
Grove, would give rise to an awkward, incongruous, bulky and overbearing form of over-development
that would unbalance and detract from the character and of Queen Annes Grove, which would harmfully
erode the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would be detrimental to the appearance of
the street scene at this location. The proposals are thereby contrary to Policies CP30 of the Core
Strategy (2010), D4 of the London Plan (2021), DMD6, DMD11, DMD13, DMD14 and DMD37 of the
Development Management Document (2014), as well as the guidance contained within the NPPF
(2024).
2
In the absence of supporting evidence to demonstrate an assessment of the impact of the
proposed crossover on the street tree, the Local Planning Authority cannot support the introduction of a
crossover. The removal of this tree, or infliction of damage to it, to facilitate the proposed new crossover
would be contrary to Policy DMD 80 of the Development Management Document (2014)
Dated: 10 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 mahboubeh.bahrami-
jovein@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
DEC25_9QAG_03 Drawing
DEC25_9QAG_04 Drawing
DEC25_9QAG_05 Drawing
DEC25_9QAG_09 Drawing
DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT Additional Information
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
CP30D4DMD6DMD11DMD13DMD14DMD37NPPFDMD80
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.