Planning application · Enfield
26/00703/FUL.
Unit 1- 3 And 44- 46 Redburn Industrial Estate Woodall Road Enfield EN3 4LE
Full / Other Planning at Unit 1- 3 And 44- 46 Redburn Industrial Estate Woodall Road Enfield EN3 4LE, received 23 Feb 2026 — refused on 27 May 2026 (delegated, Samuel Wong).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 May 2026
13 wks
Decision time
5 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
25
Documents
25 linked
1
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?
Conversion of existing light industrial (E(g)(iii)) and storage/distribution (B8) units into 3x units, involving rear extension.
Reference
26/00703/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN3 4LE
Ward
Council
Received
23 Feb 2026
Validated
2 Apr 2026
Target date
28 May 2026
Decision date
27 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
26/00703/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN3 4LE
Ward
Council
Received
23 Feb 2026
Validated
2 Apr 2026
Target date
28 May 2026
Decision date
27 May 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 27 May 2026, delegated decision by Samuel Wong — 13 weeks from submission (5 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
23 Feb 2026
Application received
2 Apr 2026
Application validated
28 May 2026
Statutory target date
27 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Samuel Wong
23 Feb 2026
Application received
2 Apr 2026
Application validated
28 May 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
27 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Samuel Wong
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal would not offer a mechanism to deliver the statutory Biodviersity Net Gain. The
proposal would therefore contrary to Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(inserted by the Environment Act 2021), Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CS36 of
the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD78 and DMD 79 of the Enfield Development
Management Document (2014).
Dated: 27 May 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
samuel.wong@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Location Plan LIVARCH/1WR/110 Rev A
Existing Site Plan LIVARCH/1WR/108 Rev A
Proposed Site Plan LIVARCH/1WR/109 Rev A
Existing Plans LIVARCH/1WR/101 Rev A
Proposed Plans LIVARCH/1WR/102 Rev A
Existing Elevations (Front & Rear) LIVARCH/1WR/103 Rev A
Existing Elevations (Side 01 & 02) LIVARCH/1WR/104 Rev A
Proposed Elevations (Front & Rear) LIVARCH/1WR/105 Rev A
Proposed Elevations (Side 01 & 02) LIVARCH/1WR/106 Rev A
Existing & Proposed Roof Plans LIVARCH/1WR/107 Rev A
Existing & Proposed Sections LIVARCH/1WR/111 Rev A
Design and Access Statement prepared by Livarch
Planning Statement prepared by Livarch
Fire Safety Strategy
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Report QFRA 2882 Rev
1.0 prepared by UK Flood Risk dated 02 Apri
Phase 1 Environmental Report 3220-P1E-1 prepared by GO
Contaminated Land Solutions dated 19 March 20
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 proposal would not offer a mechanism to deliver the statutory Biodviersity Net Gain. The
proposal would therefore contrary to Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(inserted by the Environment Act 2021), Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CS36 of
the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD78 and DMD 79 of the Enfield Development
Management Document (2014).
Dated: 27 May 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
samuel.wong@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Location Plan LIVARCH/1WR/110 Rev A
Existing Site Plan LIVARCH/1WR/108 Rev A
Proposed Site Plan LIVARCH/1WR/109 Rev A
Existing Plans LIVARCH/1WR/101 Rev A
Proposed Plans LIVARCH/1WR/102 Rev A
Existing Elevations (Front & Rear) LIVARCH/1WR/103 Rev A
Existing Elevations (Side 01 & 02) LIVARCH/1WR/104 Rev A
Proposed Elevations (Front & Rear) LIVARCH/1WR/105 Rev A
Proposed Elevations (Side 01 & 02) LIVARCH/1WR/106 Rev A
Existing & Proposed Roof Plans LIVARCH/1WR/107 Rev A
Existing & Proposed Sections LIVARCH/1WR/111 Rev A
Design and Access Statement prepared by Livarch
Planning Statement prepared by Livarch
Fire Safety Strategy
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Report QFRA 2882 Rev
1.0 prepared by UK Flood Risk dated 02 Apri
Phase 1 Environmental Report 3220-P1E-1 prepared by GO
Contaminated Land Solutions dated 19 March 20
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
G6CS36DMD78DMD79
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.