Planning application · Enfield
26/00962/HOU.
127 Bullsmoor Lane Enfield EN3 6TH
Householder at 127 Bullsmoor Lane Enfield EN3 6TH, received 11 Mar 2026 — refused on 27 May 2026 (delegated, Eric Thompson).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 May 2026
11 wks
Decision time
3 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
19
Documents
19 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 single storey, part two storey rear extension and front porch.
Reference
26/00962/HOU
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN3 6TH
Ward
Council
Received
11 Mar 2026
Validated
2 Apr 2026
Target date
28 May 2026
Decision date
27 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
26/00962/HOU
Type
Householder
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN3 6TH
Ward
Council
Received
11 Mar 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
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 Eric Thompson — 11 weeks from submission (3 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
11 Mar 2026
Application received
2 Apr 2026
Application validated
28 May 2026
Statutory target date
27 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Eric Thompson
11 Mar 2026
Application received
2 Apr 2026
Application validated
28 May 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
27 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Eric Thompson
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed ground floor rear extension, by reason of its bulk, excessive depth , its full width
form, and its resultant size, scale and massing, would fail to read as a subordinate addition and would
instead appear as a continuation of the principal building envelope thereby causing harm to the
character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding residential area, contrary to
Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Core Policy 30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and
Policies DMD 8, DMD 11 and DMD 37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
2
The proposed first floor rear extension, by reason of its flat roofed form, massing, size, scale,
bulk, shape and design, would constitute an incongruous and dominant addition that fails to respect the
existing roof form and architectural character of the host dwelling. The extension would not read as a
subordinate addition to the original building and would instead introduce an overbearing and visually
awkward element that competes with and undermines the established form of the host dwelling and the
local area. The proposal would thereby cause significant harm to the design quality, character and
appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the
London Plan (2021), Core Policy 30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD8, DMD11
and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
3
The proposed ground floor and first floor rear extensions, by reason of their combined depth and
proximity to the shared southern boundary with No. 125 Bullsmoor Lane, would breach a line taken at
45 and 30 degrees from the midpoint of the nearest original ground and first floor rear habitable room
window respectively at No. 125, resulting in an unacceptably close and overbearing two storey form,
thereby causing a significant loss of outlook andlight and creating an oppressive sense of enclosure to
the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers of that property, contrary to contrary to Policies D3
and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Core Policy 30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and Policies
DMD 8, DMD 11 and DMD 37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
4
The proposed development has not been supported by sufficient evidence to demonstrate that
surface water flood risk would be appropriately managed, as the submitted Flood Risk Assessment fails
to show that the loss of on site surface water flood storage arising from the additional built footprint
would be adequately compensated for. As such, the proposal has not been shown to avoid an
increased risk of flooding and is contrary to Section 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework,
Policies SI 12 and SI 13 of the London Plan, Policies CP21 and CP28 of the Enfield Core Strategy, and
Policies DMD59, DMD 60 and DMD 61 of the Enfield Development Management Document.
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
eric.thompson@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
2085_YPUK_P002(A) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P002(B) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P002(A) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P003(B) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P004(A) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P003(A) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P004(B) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P007 P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P005(B) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P006(A) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P005(A) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P006(B) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P008 P3 Drawing
Flood Risk Assessment and SUDS Report Supporting Information
2085_YPUK_P001 P3 Drawing
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 ground floor rear extension, by reason of its bulk, excessive depth , its full width
form, and its resultant size, scale and massing, would fail to read as a subordinate addition and would
instead appear as a continuation of the principal building envelope thereby causing harm to the
character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding residential area, contrary to
Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Core Policy 30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and
Policies DMD 8, DMD 11 and DMD 37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
2
The proposed first floor rear extension, by reason of its flat roofed form, massing, size, scale,
bulk, shape and design, would constitute an incongruous and dominant addition that fails to respect the
existing roof form and architectural character of the host dwelling. The extension would not read as a
subordinate addition to the original building and would instead introduce an overbearing and visually
awkward element that competes with and undermines the established form of the host dwelling and the
local area. The proposal would thereby cause significant harm to the design quality, character and
appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the
London Plan (2021), Core Policy 30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD8, DMD11
and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
3
The proposed ground floor and first floor rear extensions, by reason of their combined depth and
proximity to the shared southern boundary with No. 125 Bullsmoor Lane, would breach a line taken at
45 and 30 degrees from the midpoint of the nearest original ground and first floor rear habitable room
window respectively at No. 125, resulting in an unacceptably close and overbearing two storey form,
thereby causing a significant loss of outlook andlight and creating an oppressive sense of enclosure to
the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers of that property, contrary to contrary to Policies D3
and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Core Policy 30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and Policies
DMD 8, DMD 11 and DMD 37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposed development has not been supported by sufficient evidence to demonstrate that
surface water flood risk would be appropriately managed, as the submitted Flood Risk Assessment fails
to show that the loss of on site surface water flood storage arising from the additional built footprint
would be adequately compensated for. As such, the proposal has not been shown to avoid an
increased risk of flooding and is contrary to Section 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework,
Policies SI 12 and SI 13 of the London Plan, Policies CP21 and CP28 of the Enfield Core Strategy, and
Policies DMD59, DMD 60 and DMD 61 of the Enfield Development Management Document.
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
eric.thompson@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
2085_YPUK_P002(A) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P002(B) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P002(A) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P003(B) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P004(A) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P003(A) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P004(B) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P007 P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P005(B) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P006(A) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P005(A) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P006(B) P3 Drawing
2085_YPUK_P008 P3 Drawing
Flood Risk Assessment and SUDS Report Supporting Information
2085_YPUK_P001 P3 Drawing
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
D3D4Enfield Core Strategy 30DMD8DMD11DMD37National Planning Policy Framework 14SI12SI13CP21CP28DMD59DMD60DMD61NPPF
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.