26/00962/HOU

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).

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).

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).

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