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?
2 no. single storey rear extensions involving replacement of existing lean-to, removal of tree, partial demolition of garage involving alterations to front elevation, demolition of front wall, installation of front slight gate and partial resurfacing the front garden.
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 26 Feb 2026, delegated decision by Eric Thompson — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
19 Dec 2025
Application received
5 Jan 2026
Application validated
2 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
26 Feb 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Eric Thompson
19 Dec 2025
Application received
5 Jan 2026
Application validated
2 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
26 Feb 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Eric Thompson
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed parking arrangement and vehicular access, by virtue of their siting and size,
would result in insufficient width for vehicular entering/existing and vehicles slowing, turning and
manoeuvring across the footway and on street parking area, leading to conflict with pedestrians and
harm to the free flow and safety of traffic, as well as the loss or obstruction of essential on street
parking. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework
(2021), Policies T2, T4, and T6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CP24 and CP25 of the Enfield Core
Strategy (2010), Policies DMD45, DMD46 and DMD47 of the Enfield Development Management
Document (2014), and the Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers (2013).
2
The proposed development, in the absence of a tree constraints plan, tree protection plan and
trial dig report, has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would retain and protect trees of visual
amenity and biodiversity value within the site contrary to Section 15 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (2021), Policies G6 and G7 of the London Plan (2021) and CP36 of the Enfield Core
Strategy (2010), DMD37, DMD 80 and DMD81 of the Enfield Development Management Document
(2014) and the British Standard for Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction (BS
5837:2012).
Dated: 26 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
Cover Letter Supporting Information
04 200 Drawing
04 101 Drawing
04 102 Drawing
04 201 Drawing
04 210 Drawing
04 111 Drawing
04 112 Drawing
04 100 A Drawing
04 113 Drawing
04 212 Drawing
04 110 A Drawing
04 103 Drawing
04 100 A Drawing
04 211 Drawing
Flood Risk Assessment Supporting Information
04 105 Drawing
Tree Survey Supporting 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 parking arrangement and vehicular access, by virtue of their siting and size,
would result in insufficient width for vehicular entering/existing and vehicles slowing, turning and
manoeuvring across the footway and on street parking area, leading to conflict with pedestrians and
harm to the free flow and safety of traffic, as well as the loss or obstruction of essential on street
parking. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework
(2021), Policies T2, T4, and T6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CP24 and CP25 of the Enfield Core
Strategy (2010), Policies DMD45, DMD46 and DMD47 of the Enfield Development Management
Document (2014), and the Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers (2013).
2
The proposed development, in the absence of a tree constraints plan, tree protection plan and
trial dig report, has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would retain and protect trees of visual
amenity and biodiversity value within the site contrary to Section 15 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (2021), Policies G6 and G7 of the London Plan (2021) and CP36 of the Enfield Core
Strategy (2010), DMD37, DMD 80 and DMD81 of the Enfield Development Management Document
(2014) and the British Standard for Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction (BS
5837:2012).
Dated: 26 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
Cover Letter Supporting Information
04 200 Drawing
04 101 Drawing
04 102 Drawing
04 201 Drawing
04 210 Drawing
04 111 Drawing
04 112 Drawing
04 100 A Drawing
04 113 Drawing
04 212 Drawing
04 110 A Drawing
04 103 Drawing
04 100 A Drawing
04 211 Drawing
Flood Risk Assessment Supporting Information
04 105 Drawing
Tree Survey Supporting 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
National Planning Policy Framework 9T6CP24CP25DMD45DMD46DMD47NPPFNational Planning Policy Framework 15G6G7CP36DMD37DMD80DMD81
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.