Planning application · Enfield
21/00079/FUL.
7 Lambs Terrace Great Cambridge Road London N9 9UR
Full / Other Planning at 7 Lambs Terrace Great Cambridge Road London N9 9UR, received 11 Jan 2021 — refused on 13 Dec 2021 (delegated, Michael Kotoh-Mortty).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
13 Dec 2021
48 wks
Decision time
40 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
10
Documents
10 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed
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?
Sub-division of site and erection of a 1 storey detached dwelling house with private amenity space, associated refuse and recycling storage and cycle store.
Reference
21/00079/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
11 Jan 2021
Validated
26 Jan 2021
Target date
23 Mar 2021
Decision date
13 Dec 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
Council register
Reference
21/00079/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
11 Jan 2021
Validated
26 Jan 2021
Target date
23 Mar 2021
Decision date
13 Dec 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
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 13 Dec 2021, delegated decision by Michael Kotoh-Mortty — 48 weeks from submission (40 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
11 Jan 2021
Application received
26 Jan 2021
Application validated
23 Mar 2021
Statutory target date
13 Dec 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Michael Kotoh-Mortty
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
11 Jan 2021
Application received
26 Jan 2021
Application validated
23 Mar 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
13 Dec 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Michael Kotoh-Mortty
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed residential development by virtue of its incongruous design, siting, scale and
awkward subdivision of the plot would result in an overdevelopment and cramped form of development
that is out of keeping and character with the surrounding form and pattern of development and
detrimental to the visual amenities of the streetscene. The proposals are thereby contrary to Policy
CP30 of the Core Strategy, D3 and G7 of the London Plan (2021), DMD6, DMD7 and DMD8 and
DMD37 of the Development Management Document, as well as the guidance contained within the
NPPF (2021).
2
The proposed development by virtue of its design, scale and siting would give rise to a
dominant form of development and a poor relationship to neighbouring properties by virtue of the
increased loss of outlook and privacy to neighbouring properties and private amenity space,
detrimental to residential amenities. The proposals are thereby contrary to policies DMD7, DMD8,
DMD9 and DMD10 of the DMD.
3
The proposed development would represent a poor standard of residential accommodation by
virtue of the unacceptable degree of overlooking from upper floor neighbouring windows at no. 7
Lambs Terrace to the proposed dwelling and associated private amenity space. The proposals are
thereby contrary to policies DMD7, DMD8, DMD9 and DMD10 of the DMD.
4
Insufficient arboricultural evidence has been provided, in the form of BS 5837:2012 to
demonstrate that there would be no undue harm caused to a tree within the immediate vicinity of the
proposed new dwelling. The tree is prominent and offers high valuable amenity within the street scene
and the irrevocable damage to this tree caused by the development is unjustifiable and would not be
acceptable. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the advice contained within the NPPF (2021),
policy G7 of the London Plan (2021) and policies DMD80 and DMD81 of the Development
Management Document (2014).
Dated: 13 December 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 michael.kotoh-
mortty@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Location Plan 099 Drawing
Block Plan 100 Drawing
Exist. Ground Floor 101 Drawing
Exist. First Floor 102 Drawing
Existing Roof 103 Drawing
Existing Section 104 Drawing
Exist. Front and Rear Elev. 105 Drawing
Prop. Ground Floor 201 Drawing
Prop. Roof Plan 202 Drawing
Prop. Section 203 Drawing
Prop. Unit Front Elev. 204 Drawing
Prop. Front and Rear Elev. 205 Drawing
Tree Survey Supporting Information
Design and Access Statement Supporting Information
Drainage Stategy Drawing
Additional Information
Rights of Applicants Aggrieved by Decision of Local Planning Authority
1
The proposed residential development by virtue of its incongruous design, siting, scale and
awkward subdivision of the plot would result in an overdevelopment and cramped form of development
that is out of keeping and character with the surrounding form and pattern of development and
detrimental to the visual amenities of the streetscene. The proposals are thereby contrary to Policy
CP30 of the Core Strategy, D3 and G7 of the London Plan (2021), DMD6, DMD7 and DMD8 and
DMD37 of the Development Management Document, as well as the guidance contained within the
NPPF (2021).
2
The proposed development by virtue of its design, scale and siting would give rise to a
dominant form of development and a poor relationship to neighbouring properties by virtue of the
increased loss of outlook and privacy to neighbouring properties and private amenity space,
detrimental to residential amenities. The proposals are thereby contrary to policies DMD7, DMD8,
DMD9 and DMD10 of the DMD.
3
The proposed development would represent a poor standard of residential accommodation by
virtue of the unacceptable degree of overlooking from upper floor neighbouring windows at no. 7
Lambs Terrace to the proposed dwelling and associated private amenity space. The proposals are
thereby contrary to policies DMD7, DMD8, DMD9 and DMD10 of the DMD.
Show all 4 rows
4
Insufficient arboricultural evidence has been provided, in the form of BS 5837:2012 to
demonstrate that there would be no undue harm caused to a tree within the immediate vicinity of the
proposed new dwelling. The tree is prominent and offers high valuable amenity within the street scene
and the irrevocable damage to this tree caused by the development is unjustifiable and would not be
acceptable. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the advice contained within the NPPF (2021),
policy G7 of the London Plan (2021) and policies DMD80 and DMD81 of the Development
Management Document (2014).
Dated: 13 December 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 michael.kotoh-
mortty@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Location Plan 099 Drawing
Block Plan 100 Drawing
Exist. Ground Floor 101 Drawing
Exist. First Floor 102 Drawing
Existing Roof 103 Drawing
Existing Section 104 Drawing
Exist. Front and Rear Elev. 105 Drawing
Prop. Ground Floor 201 Drawing
Prop. Roof Plan 202 Drawing
Prop. Section 203 Drawing
Prop. Unit Front Elev. 204 Drawing
Prop. Front and Rear Elev. 205 Drawing
Tree Survey Supporting Information
Design and Access Statement Supporting Information
Drainage Stategy Drawing
Additional Information
Rights of Applicants Aggrieved by Decision of Local Planning Authority
Policies cited
CP30D3G7DMD6DMD7DMD8DMD37NPPFDMD80DMD81
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
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.