London Borough of Enfield appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Enfield?
See the harm inspectors found in selected Enfield examples and the limited allowed comparison.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 142 of 226
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 51
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 88
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 135
- of 143 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Enfield LPA (51.650998, −0.087236). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Enfield appeal findings
Enfield extensions harming character and appearance
The selected examples lean more heavily toward dismissed appeals than the matched local set, so the allowed comparison is limited.
Counted against appeals
Extensions harming Enfield’s character and appearance
Side extension caused unacceptable harm
The inspector concluded the single-storey side extension would unacceptably harm the area’s character and appearance.
Front extension caused significant harm
The inspector concluded the partial front and first-floor extension would significantly harm the area’s character and appearance.
Width and dormer size mattered
The two-storey side extension’s width and appearance, and the rear dormer’s size and appearance, were found harmful to the property and wider area.
Helped or needed
No character-and-appearance harm in allowed appeal
No harm to area or property
The inspector concluded that the development would not harm the area’s character and appearance or the property itself.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify the extension width or dormer size?
- Does it say the property, wider area, or both would be harmed?
- What evidence addresses the harm described in your refusal?
The displayed allowed extract gives only its conclusion, not the design analysis behind it. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
12 October 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of area and the property itself.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of area nor the property itself. There is no conflict with Policy CP30 of the Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025 (2010), Policies DMD6, DMD8 and DMD37 of the DMD and Policy D3 within the London Plan (2021) which amongst other things seeks to create a strong sense of place, achieve good design appropriate to the local context.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
16 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey side extension with integrated solar panels.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As a consequence, the proposals would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and thus be contrary to Policies D4 and D8 of The London Plan, The Spatial Development Strategy for [name] (London) (2021), Policy CP30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy (2010), and Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD11, DMD14 and DMD37 of The Enfield Development Management Document (2014), which, amongst other things, seek to ensure new development is of a high quality design and be of appropriate height and bulk so as not to adversely impact on the character of the local area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
20 September 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
partial front extension with first floor front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out, I conclude that the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, in conflict with Policies D3 of the London Plan (March 2021), Core Policy 30 of the [name] (November 2010), and [name] 8 and DMD 37 of the Development Management Document 2014 (the DMD), which require that new developments achieve high standards of design, have appropriate regard to their surroundings and improve the environment in terms of visual amenity; that proposals for extensions have regard to factors including siting, layout, height, materials, bulk and massing.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
10 August 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a two-storey side extension including hip- to-gable roof extension and rear dormer, demolition of existing conservatory and replacement with single-storey rear extension, alteration to front elevation windows and porch.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of [site address] and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, for the reasons given, I find that due to the width and appearance of the two-storey side extension, and the size and appearance of the rear dormer, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of [site address] and the wider area. I have identified clear conflict with [name] 13 and DMD 14 of the currently adopted DMD. By failing to achieve a high-quality design and appropriate regard to its surroundings, the proposal would also conflict with DMD Policy DMD 37, Core Policy 30 of the Council’s Core Strategy 2010, and Policy D4 of The London Plan 2021. For the same reasons there would be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s (the Framework) objectives for achieving well-designed places.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
24 March 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
part single, part 2-storey side and rear extension with rear and side dormers with front roof lights.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider that the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have considered all other matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, it would conflict with the policies referred to and therefore, the appeal fails.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2