← Back to Archive

Without planning permission, the unauthorised erection of a single storey rear extension (outlined in blue on the attached plan for identification purposes) to the rear of the Premises in excess of the parameters set out within Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015

📊

Borough Success Rate

In London Borough of Enfield, approx 35.6% of Householder developments appeals are successful. (Sample: 741 cases).

Planzo Professional Representation

Don't leave your appeal to chance.

Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000 archive.
Fixed-fee Householder representation for £750.

Book Free Review How it works →

Technical Issues Heatmap

Green Belt Character and Appearance Privacy
Keyword Heatmap Locked

Instant scan of technical battlegrounds available with a Day Pass.

Inspector Profile: Lloyd I

Archive Data: 8 Decisions
Allowance Rate (Householder developments)
37.5% ↑ High
National Average (Householder developments)
35.3%

Inspector's Analysis

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 November 2016 by Iwan Lloyd BA BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 21 December 2016 Appeal Ref: APP/Q5300/C/16/3149616 39 St. Edmunds Road, London N9 7PU  The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensat…

Full Analysis Locked

Unlock full text, site maps, and the evidence-ready PDF.

Unlock Case (£10)