Planning application · Enfield
21/01875/FUL.
105 Greenwood Avenue Enfield EN3 5DX
Full / Other Planning at 105 Greenwood Avenue Enfield EN3 5DX, received 13 May 2021 — refused on 16 Jul 2021 (delegated, Max Leonardo).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
16 Jul 2021
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
12
Documents
12 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?
Subdivision of site and conversion of single family dwelling house into 2x single family dwellings, involving 2 storey side extension to existing house.
Reference
21/01875/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN3 5DX
Ward
Council
Received
13 May 2021
Validated
21 May 2021
Target date
16 Jul 2021
Decision date
16 Jul 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
21/01875/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN3 5DX
Ward
Council
Received
13 May 2021
Validated
21 May 2021
Target date
16 Jul 2021
Decision date
16 Jul 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 16 Jul 2021, delegated decision by Max Leonardo — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
13 May 2021
Application received
21 May 2021
Application validated
16 Jul 2021
Statutory target date
16 Jul 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Max Leonardo
13 May 2021
Application received
21 May 2021
Application validated
16 Jul 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
16 Jul 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Max Leonardo
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by virtue of its failure to provide compensatory family
accommodation within the development itself, would be to the detriment of the strategic objective to
increase the supply of family homes in the borough, contrary to Policy H10 of the London Plan 2021,
CP 5 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010, DMD 5 of the Enfield Development Management Document
2014 and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 taken as a whole.
2
The proposed development, by virtue of its excessive rearward projection and failure to provide
adequately sized bedrooms, would result in an unacceptably restricted rear outlook and limited
sunlight as perceived by the more northerly of the two resulting dwellings as well as unacceptably
cramped bedrooms, thereby offering a substandard quality of accommodation for future occupiers,
contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan 2021, CP 4 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010, DMD
8 of the Enfield Development Management Document 2014 and the policies of the National Planning
Policy Framework 2019 taken as a whole.
3
The proposed two storey side and rear extension, by virtue of its excessive and incongruous
depth and height, would detrimentally impact the character and appearance of the host property and
the surrounding area, contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021, CP 30 of the Enfield
Core Strategy 2010, DMD 8, DMD 11 and DMD 37 of the Enfield Development Management
Document 2014 and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 taken as a whole.
4
In the absence of a site plan demonstrating that the development would incorporate adequate
access, parking and refuse storage arrangements, the development would adversely affect the street
scene and fail to promote sustainable modes of transport, contrary to Policies D3, D6, T5, T6 and T6.1
of the London Plan 2021, CP 24, CP 25 and CP 30 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010, DMD 5, DMD 8,
DMD 45 and DMD 47 of the Enfield Development Management Document 2014 and the policies of the
National Planning Policy Framework 2019 taken as a whole.
Dated: 16 July 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
max.leonardo@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
242-PL-001 Site Location Plan Drawing
242-PL-010 Existing & Proposed Block Plan Drawing
242-PL-100 Existing Plans & Elevations Drawing
242-PL-101 Demolition Plans & Elevations Drawing
242-PL-110 Proposed Plans Drawing
242-PL-200 Proposed Elevations Drawing
242-PL-300 Existing & Proposed Sections Drawing
Additional Information
Rights of Applicants Aggrieved by Decision of Local Planning Authority
1
The proposed development, by virtue of its failure to provide compensatory family
accommodation within the development itself, would be to the detriment of the strategic objective to
increase the supply of family homes in the borough, contrary to Policy H10 of the London Plan 2021,
CP 5 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010, DMD 5 of the Enfield Development Management Document
2014 and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 taken as a whole.
2
The proposed development, by virtue of its excessive rearward projection and failure to provide
adequately sized bedrooms, would result in an unacceptably restricted rear outlook and limited
sunlight as perceived by the more northerly of the two resulting dwellings as well as unacceptably
cramped bedrooms, thereby offering a substandard quality of accommodation for future occupiers,
contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan 2021, CP 4 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010, DMD
8 of the Enfield Development Management Document 2014 and the policies of the National Planning
Policy Framework 2019 taken as a whole.
3
The proposed two storey side and rear extension, by virtue of its excessive and incongruous
depth and height, would detrimentally impact the character and appearance of the host property and
the surrounding area, contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021, CP 30 of the Enfield
Core Strategy 2010, DMD 8, DMD 11 and DMD 37 of the Enfield Development Management
Document 2014 and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 taken as a whole.
Show all 4 rows
4
In the absence of a site plan demonstrating that the development would incorporate adequate
access, parking and refuse storage arrangements, the development would adversely affect the street
scene and fail to promote sustainable modes of transport, contrary to Policies D3, D6, T5, T6 and T6.1
of the London Plan 2021, CP 24, CP 25 and CP 30 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010, DMD 5, DMD 8,
DMD 45 and DMD 47 of the Enfield Development Management Document 2014 and the policies of the
National Planning Policy Framework 2019 taken as a whole.
Dated: 16 July 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
max.leonardo@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
242-PL-001 Site Location Plan Drawing
242-PL-010 Existing & Proposed Block Plan Drawing
242-PL-100 Existing Plans & Elevations Drawing
242-PL-101 Demolition Plans & Elevations Drawing
242-PL-110 Proposed Plans Drawing
242-PL-200 Proposed Elevations Drawing
242-PL-300 Existing & Proposed Sections Drawing
Additional Information
Rights of Applicants Aggrieved by Decision of Local Planning Authority
Policies cited
H10CP5DMD5NPPFD3D6CP4DMD8D4CP30DMD11DMD37T5T6T6.1CP24CP25DMD45DMD47
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.