Planning application · Enfield
26/00343/FUL.
96A Green Dragon Lane London N21 2NJ
Full / Other Planning at 96A Green Dragon Lane London N21 2NJ, received 29 Jan 2026 — refused on 10 Apr 2026 (delegated, Aaron Hawkins).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
10 Apr 2026
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
14
Documents
14 linked
1
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Appeal lodged
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?
Conversion of existing first floor flat into 2 self-contained flats, involving dormer extension at rear and front rooflights.
Reference
26/00343/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N21 2NJ
Ward
Council
Received
29 Jan 2026
Validated
12 Feb 2026
Target date
9 Apr 2026
Decision date
10 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
26/00343/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N21 2NJ
Ward
Council
Received
29 Jan 2026
Validated
12 Feb 2026
Target date
9 Apr 2026
Decision date
10 Apr 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 10 Apr 2026, delegated decision by Aaron Hawkins — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
29 Jan 2026
Application received
12 Feb 2026
Application validated
9 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
10 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Aaron Hawkins
Appeal
Appeal lodged
29 Jan 2026
Application received
12 Feb 2026
Application validated
9 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
10 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Aaron Hawkins
Appeal
Appeal lodged
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by virtue of its insufficient internal floor area within first floor unit
and insufficient ceiling heights throughout the development would result in substandard and
inappropriate accommodation incapable of meeting the reasonable needs of occupiers. The
proposal is therefore contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021),
Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy
(2010), Policies DMD8 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document
(2014).
2
The proposed hip to gable and dormer extension, by virtue of its design, form, bulk, within the
roof plane, would appear visually intrusive, incongruous, overly dominant and out of keeping
with the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area of which it
forms part, contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policies
D4, D8 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), DMD6, DMD8,
DMD13 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 10 April 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
Planning, design and access statement Supporting Information
Energy Statement Supporting Information
Highway Safety Impact Assessment Supporting Information
Construction Management Plan Supporting Information
101 Drawing
102 Drawing
201 Drawing
202 Drawing
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 virtue of its insufficient internal floor area within first floor unit
and insufficient ceiling heights throughout the development would result in substandard and
inappropriate accommodation incapable of meeting the reasonable needs of occupiers. The
proposal is therefore contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021),
Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy
(2010), Policies DMD8 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document
(2014).
2
The proposed hip to gable and dormer extension, by virtue of its design, form, bulk, within the
roof plane, would appear visually intrusive, incongruous, overly dominant and out of keeping
with the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area of which it
forms part, contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policies
D4, D8 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), DMD6, DMD8,
DMD13 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 10 April 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
Planning, design and access statement Supporting Information
Energy Statement Supporting Information
Highway Safety Impact Assessment Supporting Information
Construction Management Plan Supporting Information
101 Drawing
102 Drawing
201 Drawing
202 Drawing
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 12D4D6CP30DMD8DMD37NPPFD8DMD6DMD13
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal lodged
Outcome not yet recorded
Appeal lodged
Outcome not yet recorded
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
Objections
1
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.