Appeal 3297144
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
6 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
retention of outbuilding and rear boundary wall.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
At the time of my site visit, the development was in place. The application form made clear that the scheme had been submitted retrospectively and I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect the proposed development would have on the risk of flooding.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site is located within a predominately residential area, within [name] 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (in footnote 55) states that site-specific flood risk assessment should be provided for all development in [name] 2 and 3.
Planning Practice Guidance1 confirms that minor development, such as that proposed, are unlikely to raise significant flood risk issues unless they would have an adverse effect on a watercourse, floodplain or its flood defences; they would impede access to flood defence and management facilities; or where the cumulative impact of such developments would have a significant effect on local flood storage capacity or flood flows.
Even minor developments can affect flood risk within the site or beyond. The proposal is for minor development and as such a pragmatic approach should be taken to the scope and level of detail provided in the required flood risk assessment. However, as a minimum, the assessment needs to demonstrate 1 Paragraph: 051 [name]: 7-051-20220825 Appeal Decision: APP/Q5300/D/22/3297144 that the development will be safe for its users for the intended lifetime of the development, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and be sufficiently flood resistant and resilient to the level and nature of the flood risk.
Whilst the appellant submitted a flood risk assessment with the planning application I find that it does not provide details to demonstrate that the proposal would not represent an unacceptable risk to flooding. For instance, by providing a plan showing the finished floor levels and estimated flood levels and any flood resistance and resilience measures necessary.
There is conflict with Policy CP28 of the Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025 (2010), Policies DMD59, DMD60 and DMD62 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) which amongst other things seek to ensure that the developments avoid and reduces the risk of flooding and does not increase the risks elsewhere. There is also conflict with the Framework, which echoes these policies concerning flooding and flood risk.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 126No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 15 September 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3297144
- Application reference
- 21/04372/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Enfield
- Planning authority code
- E09000010
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 15 m²
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 17 April 2022
- Valid date
- 21 April 2022
- Start date
- 5 May 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 6 April 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 12 October 2022
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 21874
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21