Planning application · Enfield
21/00732/FUL.
254 Durants Road Enfield EN3 7AZ
Full / Other Planning at 254 Durants Road Enfield EN3 7AZ, received 1 Mar 2021 — refused on 11 May 2021 (delegated, Lap-Pan Chong).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
11 May 2021
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
14
Documents
14 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 single family dwelling house into 2 self-contained flats (2 x 2 bed) with private amenity space, involving part single, part 2-storey rear and side extensions with access door to side elevation, new front dormer and re-configured rear dormer to 1st floor with associated car parking.
Reference
21/00732/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN3 7AZ
Ward
Council
Received
1 Mar 2021
Validated
16 Mar 2021
Target date
11 May 2021
Decision date
11 May 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
21/00732/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN3 7AZ
Ward
Council
Received
1 Mar 2021
Validated
16 Mar 2021
Target date
11 May 2021
Decision date
11 May 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
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 May 2021, delegated decision by Lap-Pan Chong — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
1 Mar 2021
Application received
16 Mar 2021
Application validated
11 May 2021
Statutory target date
11 May 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Lap-Pan Chong
1 Mar 2021
Application received
16 Mar 2021
Application validated
11 May 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
11 May 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Lap-Pan Chong
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The development, by reason of the loss of the existing single family dwelling and lack of
suitable replacement family sized accommodation (3-bed+), would fail to achieve the housing mix
necessary to meet the housing needs of Enfield. In this regard, the development is contrary to Policies
H1 and H10 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policy DMD5(2) of the
Development Management Document (2014), as well as the objectives of the NPPF (2019), the
London Housing SPG (2016) and the Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2015).
2
The proposed vehicular access, by reason of its excessive width, would result in an
unacceptable loss of on-street car parking spaces and would give rise to conditions prejudicial to the
free flow and safety of vehicular traffic and unsafe pedestrian movements. The proposal is therefore
contrary to Policies T5 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CP24 and CP25 of the Core
Strategy (2010), Policies DMD 8, DMD 45, DMD 47 and DMD 48 of the Development Management
Document (2014) and the Council's Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers (2013).
3
The proposed two storey side to rear extension, by reason of its excessive rearward projection,
height and siting, would result in an overly dominant form of development which would result in an
unacceptable loss of outlook and a heightened sense of enclosure to the detriment of the residential
and visual amenities of the neighbouring occupiers at 266 Durants Road. The proposal is therefore
contrary to Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and
Policies 10, 11 and 37 of the Development Management Document (2014).
4
The proposed side entrance to the first floor flat, by reason of its siting and design, would
appear incongruous in the street scene and out of keeping with the character of the host property and
the wider terrace. The development is therefore contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan
(2021), Policy 30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD 6, DMD 13 and DMD 37 of the
Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 11 May 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 lap-
pan.chong@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
CB-001-21/A Drawing
CB-002-21/A Drawing
CB-003-21/A Drawing
CB-004-21/A Drawing
CB-005-21/A Drawing
CB-006-21/A Drawing
CB-007-21/A Drawing
CB-008-21/A Drawing
Design and Access Statement Supporting Information
Rights of Applicants Aggrieved by Decision of Local Planning Authority
1
The development, by reason of the loss of the existing single family dwelling and lack of
suitable replacement family sized accommodation (3-bed+), would fail to achieve the housing mix
necessary to meet the housing needs of Enfield. In this regard, the development is contrary to Policies
H1 and H10 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policy DMD5(2) of the
Development Management Document (2014), as well as the objectives of the NPPF (2019), the
London Housing SPG (2016) and the Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2015).
2
The proposed vehicular access, by reason of its excessive width, would result in an
unacceptable loss of on-street car parking spaces and would give rise to conditions prejudicial to the
free flow and safety of vehicular traffic and unsafe pedestrian movements. The proposal is therefore
contrary to Policies T5 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CP24 and CP25 of the Core
Strategy (2010), Policies DMD 8, DMD 45, DMD 47 and DMD 48 of the Development Management
Document (2014) and the Council's Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers (2013).
3
The proposed two storey side to rear extension, by reason of its excessive rearward projection,
height and siting, would result in an overly dominant form of development which would result in an
unacceptable loss of outlook and a heightened sense of enclosure to the detriment of the residential
and visual amenities of the neighbouring occupiers at 266 Durants Road. The proposal is therefore
contrary to Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and
Policies 10, 11 and 37 of the Development Management Document (2014).
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposed side entrance to the first floor flat, by reason of its siting and design, would
appear incongruous in the street scene and out of keeping with the character of the host property and
the wider terrace. The development is therefore contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan
(2021), Policy 30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD 6, DMD 13 and DMD 37 of the
Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 11 May 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 lap-
pan.chong@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
CB-001-21/A Drawing
CB-002-21/A Drawing
CB-003-21/A Drawing
CB-004-21/A Drawing
CB-005-21/A Drawing
CB-006-21/A Drawing
CB-007-21/A Drawing
CB-008-21/A Drawing
Design and Access Statement Supporting Information
Rights of Applicants Aggrieved by Decision of Local Planning Authority
Policies cited
H1H10CP5NPPFT5T6.1CP24CP25DMD8DMD45DMD47DMD48D3CP30Development Management Document 10Development Management Document 11Development Management Document 37D4Enfield Core Strategy 30DMD6DMD13DMD37
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.