Planning application · Enfield
20/04028/FUL.
55 Tewkesbury Terrace London N11 2LU
Full / Other Planning at 55 Tewkesbury Terrace London N11 2LU, received 11 Dec 2020 — refused on 11 Feb 2021 (delegated, Carolyn Southall).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
11 Feb 2021
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
21
Documents
21 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?
Redevelopment of site involving demolition of existing house and garage and erection of a block of 7 self contained flats together with a two-car garage unit to rear and parking to front.
Reference
20/04028/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N11 2LU
Ward
Council
Received
11 Dec 2020
Validated
17 Dec 2020
Target date
11 Feb 2021
Decision date
11 Feb 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
20/04028/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N11 2LU
Ward
Council
Received
11 Dec 2020
Validated
17 Dec 2020
Target date
11 Feb 2021
Decision date
11 Feb 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 11 Feb 2021, delegated decision by Carolyn Southall — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
11 Dec 2020
Application received
17 Dec 2020
Application validated
11 Feb 2021
Statutory target date
11 Feb 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Carolyn Southall
11 Dec 2020
Application received
17 Dec 2020
Application validated
11 Feb 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
11 Feb 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Carolyn Southall
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by virtue of its siting, width, poor design, including detailed design,
fenestration and lack of active street frontage, in particular the introduction of corridor windows at first
floor, would result in an inappropriate, dominant, cramped, contrived and intrusive overdevelopment of
the plot. The proposal would fail to respect the established plot widths and vertical emphasis detailing
prominent in the character of the area, thereby failing to integrate effectively with the immediate setting
and resulting in demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the application site and the
surrounding area. In this respect, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 3.4, 3.5, 7.1, 7.4 and 7.6
of the London Plan (2016), Policy 30 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD 6, 7, 8, and 37 of the
Development Management Document (2014), and the NPPF (2019).
2
The proposal, by virtue of failing to meet minimum floor area requirements and its its generally
contrived internal layout resulting in all units being single aspect, and six out of seven being single
aspect with a north-east aspect, would result in a substantial overdevelopment of the site giving rise to
poor living conditions to occupiers of the development with a contrived, cramped and dysfunctional
internal configuration precluding practical use to meet with the reasonable demands of current and
future occupiers. The proposal would be contrary to Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy (2010), DMD 6,
DMD8 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document (2014) and Policy 3.5 of the London
Plan as well as the objectives of the NPPF (2019), Nationally Described Space Standards and the
London Housing SPG.
3
The proposed development due to lack of quality and functional private amenity, in particular in
relation to Flats 6 and 7, would fail to provide sufficient, meaningful and accessible external amenity
space, resulting in a poor quality living environment for future residents. In addition, no communal
amenity space has been provided on site. The proposal would be contrary to CP30 of the Core
Strategy (2010), 3.5 and 3.6 of the London Plan (2016), the London Housing SPG, DMD 8 and DMD 9
of the Development Management Document (2014) and the NPPF (2019).
4
The scheme would introduce a significant amount of additional plot coverage from the
proposed increase in the building's footprint. Hence, in the absence of a satisfactory Sustainable
Drainage Strategy, the proposed scheme fails to appropriately consider and mitigate the risks of
flooding from all possible sources, allow for adequate permeable surfacing/soft landscaping and
sustainable urban drainage measures. Therefore, the proposal is not compliant with the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2019), policies 5.13 of the London Plan (2016), DMD 61 of the
Development Management Document (2014) and CP21 of the Core Strategy (2010).
5
Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there would be no undue harm
caused to on site trees and third party trees by the proposed development. The onsite trees and third
party trees are prominent and offer valuable amenity within the local landscape and the irrevocable
damage to these trees caused by the development is unjustifiable and would not be acceptable. The
proposal would therefore be contrary to the NPPF (2019), London Plan policies 7.19 and 7.21 (2016) ,
Core Strategy policy CP34 (2010) and DMD 80 of the Development Management Document (2014).
6
Insufficient information has been provided that sets out details of improvements to the
biodiversity offer at this site to help mitigate the impacts of climate change, through the introduction of
on-site ecological enhancements. The proposal fails to accord with Policy 7.19 of the London Plan
(2016), Policy CP36 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policy DMD 79 of the Development Management
Document (2014) and NPPF (2019).
7
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would meet climate
change objectives by achieving the highest standards for sustainable design and construction. As
such, the proposal is contrary to Policies 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the London Plan (2016), Policies 20, 21
and 25 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD 49, DMD 55 and DMD 61 of the Development
Management Document (2014) and the NPPF (2019).
8
Insufficient information has been submitted to justify the proposal would not have an adverse
impact on the residential amenity of future occupiers from the perspective of noise and vibration
associated with the juxtaposition of the development with the Piccadilly Line tunnel, and associated
rail movements. In this respect the development would be contrary to policies CP 22, CP30 and CP32
of the Core Strategy (2010), 7.4 and 7.15 of the London Plan (2016), DMD 64, 65 and 68 of the
Development Management Document (2014) as well as the NPPF (2019).
9
The proposed development by virtue of the proposed mix of dwelling sizes and type fails to
sufficiently meet the housing needs identified in Enfield's Housing Market Assessment and thus fails to
provide a vibrancy in the mix of units to support a sustainable community. The proposal would
therefore contrary to Strategic Objective 4 and Core Policy 5 of the Enfield Plan (2010), Policy 3.4 of
the London Plan (2010) and Policy DMD3 of the Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 11 February 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
carolyn.southall@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
1.01/PL Drawing
1.02/PL Drawing
1.04/PL Drawing
2.01/PL Drawing
2.02/PL Drawing
3.01/PL Drawing
4.01/PL Drawing
3996/02 Drawing
3996/03 Drawing
3996/04 Drawing
Design and Access Statement SR Architect Additional Information
Tracsis Traffic and Data Service Oct 2020 Additional Information
KP Acoustice April to May Additional Information
1.03/PL 2019 Drawing
Additional Information
Rights of Applicants Aggrieved by Decision of Local Planning Authority
1
The proposed development, by virtue of its siting, width, poor design, including detailed design,
fenestration and lack of active street frontage, in particular the introduction of corridor windows at first
floor, would result in an inappropriate, dominant, cramped, contrived and intrusive overdevelopment of
the plot. The proposal would fail to respect the established plot widths and vertical emphasis detailing
prominent in the character of the area, thereby failing to integrate effectively with the immediate setting
and resulting in demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the application site and the
surrounding area. In this respect, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 3.4, 3.5, 7.1, 7.4 and 7.6
of the London Plan (2016), Policy 30 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD 6, 7, 8, and 37 of the
Development Management Document (2014), and the NPPF (2019).
2
The proposal, by virtue of failing to meet minimum floor area requirements and its its generally
contrived internal layout resulting in all units being single aspect, and six out of seven being single
aspect with a north-east aspect, would result in a substantial overdevelopment of the site giving rise to
poor living conditions to occupiers of the development with a contrived, cramped and dysfunctional
internal configuration precluding practical use to meet with the reasonable demands of current and
future occupiers. The proposal would be contrary to Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy (2010), DMD 6,
DMD8 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document (2014) and Policy 3.5 of the London
Plan as well as the objectives of the NPPF (2019), Nationally Described Space Standards and the
London Housing SPG.
3
The proposed development due to lack of quality and functional private amenity, in particular in
relation to Flats 6 and 7, would fail to provide sufficient, meaningful and accessible external amenity
space, resulting in a poor quality living environment for future residents. In addition, no communal
amenity space has been provided on site. The proposal would be contrary to CP30 of the Core
Strategy (2010), 3.5 and 3.6 of the London Plan (2016), the London Housing SPG, DMD 8 and DMD 9
of the Development Management Document (2014) and the NPPF (2019).
Show all 9 rows
4
The scheme would introduce a significant amount of additional plot coverage from the
proposed increase in the building's footprint. Hence, in the absence of a satisfactory Sustainable
Drainage Strategy, the proposed scheme fails to appropriately consider and mitigate the risks of
flooding from all possible sources, allow for adequate permeable surfacing/soft landscaping and
sustainable urban drainage measures. Therefore, the proposal is not compliant with the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2019), policies 5.13 of the London Plan (2016), DMD 61 of the
Development Management Document (2014) and CP21 of the Core Strategy (2010).
5
Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there would be no undue harm
caused to on site trees and third party trees by the proposed development. The onsite trees and third
party trees are prominent and offer valuable amenity within the local landscape and the irrevocable
damage to these trees caused by the development is unjustifiable and would not be acceptable. The
proposal would therefore be contrary to the NPPF (2019), London Plan policies 7.19 and 7.21 (2016) ,
Core Strategy policy CP34 (2010) and DMD 80 of the Development Management Document (2014).
6
Insufficient information has been provided that sets out details of improvements to the
biodiversity offer at this site to help mitigate the impacts of climate change, through the introduction of
on-site ecological enhancements. The proposal fails to accord with Policy 7.19 of the London Plan
(2016), Policy CP36 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policy DMD 79 of the Development Management
Document (2014) and NPPF (2019).
7
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would meet climate
change objectives by achieving the highest standards for sustainable design and construction. As
such, the proposal is contrary to Policies 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the London Plan (2016), Policies 20, 21
and 25 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD 49, DMD 55 and DMD 61 of the Development
Management Document (2014) and the NPPF (2019).
8
Insufficient information has been submitted to justify the proposal would not have an adverse
impact on the residential amenity of future occupiers from the perspective of noise and vibration
associated with the juxtaposition of the development with the Piccadilly Line tunnel, and associated
rail movements. In this respect the development would be contrary to policies CP 22, CP30 and CP32
of the Core Strategy (2010), 7.4 and 7.15 of the London Plan (2016), DMD 64, 65 and 68 of the
Development Management Document (2014) as well as the NPPF (2019).
9
The proposed development by virtue of the proposed mix of dwelling sizes and type fails to
sufficiently meet the housing needs identified in Enfield's Housing Market Assessment and thus fails to
provide a vibrancy in the mix of units to support a sustainable community. The proposal would
therefore contrary to Strategic Objective 4 and Core Policy 5 of the Enfield Plan (2010), Policy 3.4 of
the London Plan (2010) and Policy DMD3 of the Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 11 February 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
carolyn.southall@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
1.01/PL Drawing
1.02/PL Drawing
1.04/PL Drawing
2.01/PL Drawing
2.02/PL Drawing
3.01/PL Drawing
4.01/PL Drawing
3996/02 Drawing
3996/03 Drawing
3996/04 Drawing
Design and Access Statement SR Architect Additional Information
Tracsis Traffic and Data Service Oct 2020 Additional Information
KP Acoustice April to May Additional Information
1.03/PL 2019 Drawing
Additional Information
Rights of Applicants Aggrieved by Decision of Local Planning Authority
Policies cited
London Plan 3.4London Plan 3.5London Plan 7.1London Plan 7.4London Plan 7.6Core Strategy 30Development Management Document 37NPPFCP4DMD6DMD8DMD37CP30London Plan 3.6DMD9London Plan 5.13DMD61CP21DMD80London Plan 7.19CP36DMD79London Plan 5.1London Plan 5.2London Plan 5.3Core Strategy 20Core Strategy 21Core Strategy 25DMD49DMD55CP22CP32London Plan 7.15DMD64Development Management Document 65Development Management Document 68Enfield Plan 5DMD3
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.