London Borough of Enfield

How Enfield decides on small housing schemes

Every decision on sites of nine units or fewer, coded from the council's own register and refreshed each quarter. What gets built, what gets approved, and what trips applications up.

Last updated April 2026 1280 applications tracked Window: Jan 2023 to Mar 2026 7 areas, 6 scheme types
Applications logged
1280
Full, householder and minor resi since Jan 2023
Decided so far
1095
675 approved, 420 refused, 33 withdrawn
Approval rate
62%
Just over half of decided applications
Typical time to decide
8 weeks
Median determination time across all small sites

Enfield, area by area

Colour shows how often applications get approved. Numbers show how many were decided. Hover or tap an area for detail.

Enfield Town & Chase 147 Enfield East 204 Edmonton 264 Ponders End 150 Southgate & Cockfosters 130 Palmers Green & Winchmore Hill 109 New Southgate & Arnos Grove 91 Approval rate 55% 68%
Spotlight

Enfield Town & Chase

Decisions
147
Approved
93
Refused
54
Approval rate
63%
Hover or tap any tile to see that area’s detail.
Tile positions are schematic, not to geographic scale. Each hex represents one of Enfield’s sub-areas as defined in the council’s own planning framework.

Across Enfield, approval rates move in a 13-point band from Palmers Green & Winchmore Hill (55%) up to Southgate & Cockfosters (68%).

Which kinds of schemes get approved?

Bar length shows how many of each type were decided. The split shows the share approved versus refused. Conversion is by far the most common route in Enfield, but it's infill that sees the highest approval rate.

Approved Refused Bar length = sample size (max n=737)
Conversion
60%n=737
Demolish & rebuild
69%n=178
End-of-terrace
61%n=95
Extension
57%n=30
Infill
73%n=22
Mid-terrace
71%n=17
Scheme types with fewer than 10 decisions in the window are not shown here.
Conversion, dividing one home into flats
Demolish & rebuild, existing building replaced with new homes
End-of-terrace, new infill at the end of a terraced row
Extension, rear, side or upward additions creating a new unit
Infill, new build on small pockets of land
Mid-terrace, insertion into the middle of a terrace

Why applications fail in Enfield

Of every hundred reasons cited in refused decisions in Enfield, design quality accounts for the biggest slice at 24%.

Design quality, bulk, massing, appearance 24
Other, mixed reasons 14
Open space, loss of garden or green space 13
Amenity, overlooking, daylight, noise 10
Unit sizes, below space standards 10
Infrastructure, access, parking, drainage 9
Transport, parking, safety, access 8
Policy, affordable housing, density targets 5
Flood risk 4
Delegated process 2
Read as: “Of every 100 reasons cited in a refusal, 24 relate to design quality.” A single refusal often names two or more reasons. Based on 771 reasons extracted from refused decision notices.

In Enfield, what gets a scheme refused is usually how it looks, not how many homes it adds.

Thinking about a specific site?

The dashboard gives you the borough picture. If you have a particular address in mind, we can tell you what the comparable decisions say about your odds, density and capacity.

Request a Site Assessment → See other boroughs
Data sources & method

Applications. Sourced from the Greater London Authority (GLA) Planning Datahub and Enfield Council’s online planning register. Covers full planning, householder, and minor residential applications of nine units or fewer decided in the window shown above.

Decisions and timing. Outcomes and determination times are taken from the council’s published decision notices.

Refusal reasons. Extracted from refused decision notices that were publicly available. Not every refusal has a readable notice, so totals count all refusals but the reason breakdown covers only those we could read.

Scheme classification. Site types (conversion, demolish & rebuild, extension, and so on) are coded from application descriptions and drawings. Areas are mapped from postcodes and ward names using the council’s own sub-area definitions.

Update frequency. Refreshed quarterly. Next refresh: July 2026.

Nothing here is planning advice. Outcomes are historical and do not predict individual cases. Approval rates vary with site specifics, policy context, and case officer. For a read on a particular site, request a Site Assessment. See our Terms of Use for full details on how this data is compiled and the limits of its use.