Planning application · Enfield
20/01013/FUL.
178 North Circular Road London N13 6BN
Full / Other Planning at 178 North Circular Road London N13 6BN, received 24 Mar 2020 — refused on 19 Nov 2021 (delegated, Alex Johnson).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
19 Nov 2021
86 wks
Decision time
78 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
8
Documents
8 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Enfield planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Conversion of outbuilding into a self-contained residential unit
Reference
20/01013/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N13 6BN
Ward
Council
Received
24 Mar 2020
Validated
25 Mar 2020
Target date
20 May 2020
Decision date
19 Nov 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
20/01013/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N13 6BN
Ward
Council
Received
24 Mar 2020
Validated
25 Mar 2020
Target date
20 May 2020
Decision date
19 Nov 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Enfield portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 19 Nov 2021, delegated decision by Alex Johnson — 86 weeks from submission (78 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
24 Mar 2020
Application received
25 Mar 2020
Application validated
20 May 2020
Statutory target date
19 Nov 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Alex Johnson
24 Mar 2020
Application received
25 Mar 2020
Application validated
20 May 2020
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
19 Nov 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Alex Johnson
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The outbuilding by reason of its internal layout and independent means of access is capable of
being used as a separate unit of residential accommodation within the curtilage of the existing
property, resulting in a cramped and over intensive use of the site, and a pattern and form of
development out of keeping and character with its surroundings, contrary to Policies D4 and D6 of the
London Plan (2021); Policy 30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010); Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD12,
and 37 of the Development Management Document (2014).
2
The proposed development by reason of its single aspect nature and poor light; outlook and
ventilation to a habitable room and its failure to demonstrate adequate outdoor amenity space
provision would result in a contrived, substandard and inappropriate form of accommodation for future
occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021); Policies
CP4 and CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD6 DMD8 and DMD37 of the
Development Management Document (2014) and the London Plan Housing SPG.
3
The proposal by reason of its siting and the increased activity associated with a separate unit
would by reason of the increased noise, disturbance and activity be harmful to the amenities enjoyed
by the residents of the neighbouring properties and would result in mutual loss of privacy to the future
occupiers of the outbuilding and No.178 North Circular Road, contrary to Policies D6 and D14 of the
London Plan (2021); Core Policies 30 and 32 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD8,
DMD 12, and 37 of the Development Management Document (2014).
4
The proposed development makes no provision for off-street parking and the applicant has
failed to provide sufficient information demonstrate that the proposal would not give rise to an
unacceptable increase in demand for on-street parking, which would have a negative impact on
highway safety and the free flow of traffic contrary to Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy 24 of
the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policy 45 of the Development Management Document (2014).
5
The proposed development, in the absence of adequate cycle storage, fails to provide a
secure, convenient and high-quality facility for all types of bicycles, contrary to Policy T6 of the London
Plan (2021); Policy CP25 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010); Policies DMD45, DMD47 and DMD48 of
the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
6
The proposed development, in the absence of adequate waste storage, fails to provide a
convenient and accessible facility for managing waste generated by the development, contrary to
Policies SI 7 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP25 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), Policies
DMD45, DMD47 and DMD48 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) and the
Enfield Waste and Recycling Storage Planning Guidance (2020).
7
The proposed development, in the absence of an adequate energy statement, fails to
demonstrate how the proposal minimises energy-related CO2 emissions and SI 4 of the London Plan
(2021); Policy CP20 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010, Policies DMD50, DMD51 and DMD53 of the
Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
8
The proposed development, in the absence of an adequate sustainable drainage strategy, fails
to demonstrate how proposed measures manage the risk of flooding from surface water run-off and
follow the drainage hierarchy in the London Plan, contrary to Policies SI 12 and SI13 of the London
Plan (2021), Policy CP28 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD59, DMD60, DMD61 and
DMD62 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 19 November 2021
Authorised on behalf of:
Mr A Higham
Head of Development Management
Development Management,
London Borough Enfield,
PO Box 53, Civic Centre,
Silver Street, Enfield,
Middlesex, EN1 3XE
If you have any questions about this decision, please contact the planning officer
alex.johnson@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Existing and Proposed Site Layout Drawing
Existing and Proposed Plans and Elevations Drawing
Location Plan Drawing
Additional Information
Rights of Applicants Aggrieved by Decision of Local Planning Authority
1
The outbuilding by reason of its internal layout and independent means of access is capable of
being used as a separate unit of residential accommodation within the curtilage of the existing
property, resulting in a cramped and over intensive use of the site, and a pattern and form of
development out of keeping and character with its surroundings, contrary to Policies D4 and D6 of the
London Plan (2021); Policy 30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010); Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD12,
and 37 of the Development Management Document (2014).
2
The proposed development by reason of its single aspect nature and poor light; outlook and
ventilation to a habitable room and its failure to demonstrate adequate outdoor amenity space
provision would result in a contrived, substandard and inappropriate form of accommodation for future
occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021); Policies
CP4 and CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD6 DMD8 and DMD37 of the
Development Management Document (2014) and the London Plan Housing SPG.
3
The proposal by reason of its siting and the increased activity associated with a separate unit
would by reason of the increased noise, disturbance and activity be harmful to the amenities enjoyed
by the residents of the neighbouring properties and would result in mutual loss of privacy to the future
occupiers of the outbuilding and No.178 North Circular Road, contrary to Policies D6 and D14 of the
London Plan (2021); Core Policies 30 and 32 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD8,
DMD 12, and 37 of the Development Management Document (2014).
Show all 8 rows
4
The proposed development makes no provision for off-street parking and the applicant has
failed to provide sufficient information demonstrate that the proposal would not give rise to an
unacceptable increase in demand for on-street parking, which would have a negative impact on
highway safety and the free flow of traffic contrary to Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy 24 of
the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policy 45 of the Development Management Document (2014).
5
The proposed development, in the absence of adequate cycle storage, fails to provide a
secure, convenient and high-quality facility for all types of bicycles, contrary to Policy T6 of the London
Plan (2021); Policy CP25 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010); Policies DMD45, DMD47 and DMD48 of
the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
6
The proposed development, in the absence of adequate waste storage, fails to provide a
convenient and accessible facility for managing waste generated by the development, contrary to
Policies SI 7 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP25 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), Policies
DMD45, DMD47 and DMD48 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) and the
Enfield Waste and Recycling Storage Planning Guidance (2020).
7
The proposed development, in the absence of an adequate energy statement, fails to
demonstrate how the proposal minimises energy-related CO2 emissions and SI 4 of the London Plan
(2021); Policy CP20 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010, Policies DMD50, DMD51 and DMD53 of the
Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
8
The proposed development, in the absence of an adequate sustainable drainage strategy, fails
to demonstrate how proposed measures manage the risk of flooding from surface water run-off and
follow the drainage hierarchy in the London Plan, contrary to Policies SI 12 and SI13 of the London
Plan (2021), Policy CP28 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD59, DMD60, DMD61 and
DMD62 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 19 November 2021
Authorised on behalf of:
Mr A Higham
Head of Development Management
Development Management,
London Borough Enfield,
PO Box 53, Civic Centre,
Silver Street, Enfield,
Middlesex, EN1 3XE
If you have any questions about this decision, please contact the planning officer
alex.johnson@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Existing and Proposed Site Layout Drawing
Existing and Proposed Plans and Elevations Drawing
Location Plan Drawing
Additional Information
Rights of Applicants Aggrieved by Decision of Local Planning Authority
Policies cited
D4D6Enfield Core Strategy 30Development Management Document 37CP4CP30DMD8DMD37D14Enfield Core Strategy 32T6Enfield Core Strategy 24Development Management Document 45CP25DMD45DMD47DMD48SI7SI4CP20DMD50DMD51DMD53SI12SI13CP28DMD59DMD60DMD61DMD62
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.