Planning application · Enfield
21/03150/FUL.
Church Hall Grove Road London N11 1LX
Full / Other Planning at Church Hall Grove Road London N11 1LX, received 16 Aug 2021 — refused on 15 Dec 2021 (delegated, Maria Demetri).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
15 Dec 2021
17 wks
Decision time
9 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
35
Documents
35 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 church hall and construction of a part 5 and part 6 storey apartment building to provide 28 self contained units with associated external works.
Reference
21/03150/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N11 1LX
Ward
Council
Received
16 Aug 2021
Validated
16 Sep 2021
Target date
16 Dec 2021
Decision date
15 Dec 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
21/03150/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N11 1LX
Ward
Council
Received
16 Aug 2021
Validated
16 Sep 2021
Target date
16 Dec 2021
Decision date
15 Dec 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 15 Dec 2021, delegated decision by Maria Demetri — 17 weeks from submission (9 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
16 Aug 2021
Application received
16 Sep 2021
Application validated
16 Dec 2021
Statutory target date
15 Dec 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Maria Demetri
16 Aug 2021
Application received
16 Sep 2021
Application validated
16 Dec 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
15 Dec 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Maria Demetri
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal fails to provide any affordable housing for a development of this scale, which
would fail to maximise the contribution of the site to the supply of affordable housing in the London
Borough of Enfield. The proposal would be contrary to Policies H4 and H5 of the London Plan (2021),
Core Policies 3 and 46 of the Core Strategy (2010), DMD1 of the Development Management
Document (2014), Enfield's S106 SPD (2016), the Mayors Affordable Housing and Viability SPG and
the NPPF (2021).
2
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 maximise
the contribution of the site to the supply of larger homes (3+ bedrooms) in the London Borough of
Enfield. The proposal would therefore contrary to Strategic Objective 4 and Core Policy 5 of the Core
Strategy (2010), DMD 3 of the Development Management Document (2014) and the NPPF.
3
The development fails to secure a mechanism to secure a contribution to carbon reduction up
to zero carbon for regulated emissions and therefore fails to make an adequate contribution to tackling
climate change in facilitating environmentally sustainable development. Further, the application fails to
provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of education infrastructure, highway
improvements, employment and skills and child care provision and associated monitoring fees. The
proposal is contrary to Core Policies 8, 13, 16, 20, 24 and 46 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010),
Policy DMD 1, DMD 45, DMD 47, DMD 48, DMD 50, DMD 51 and DMD 53 of the Development
Management Document (2014), the associated S106 Supplementary Planning Document and the
NPPF (2021).
4
The proposal, by reason of its siting to the shared boundaries and position of habitable room
windows, would result in a heightened sense of enclosure, impact to outlook, impact to privacy and
impact to the receipt of light. Cumulative the impact of the proposal would harmful to existing
residential units. The proposal would be contrary to the NPPF (2019), policy D4 of the London Plan
(2021), Core Policy 30 of the Council's Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DMD11 of the Council's
Development Management Document (2014).
5
The proposal, by virtue of its generally contrived internal layout, impact of the siting of the
proposed numerous habitable room windows resulting in poor outlook, or no outlook at all, a number of
single aspect flats and 3 flats having poor quality and minimal privacy amenity space, would result in
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 the NPPF (2021).
6
In the absence of an acceptable Sustainable Drainage Strategy, the proposed scheme fails to
appropriately consider and mitigate the risks of flooding from all possible sources and allow for
adequate measures to make the proposed development safe over its lifetime. Therefore, the proposal
is not compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2021), DMD 59, DMD 60, DMD
61, DMD 62 and DMD 63 of the Development Management Document (2014) and CP21, CP28 and
CP29 of the Core Strategy (2010).
Dated: 15 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
maria.demetri@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Application Form Supporting Information
104 Drawing
103 Drawing
102 Drawing
122 D Drawing
120 E Additional Information
123 Drawing
140 B Drawing
131A Additional Information
121 D Additional Information
130 B Drawing
132 Drawing
100 Drawing
DesignAccess Statement Supporting Information
Fire Statement Supporting Information
Air Quality Assessment Supporting Information
101 Drawing
Demolition Statement Revised plans
Health Impact Supporting Information
Noise Impact Assessment Supporting Information
Affordable Housing Statement Revised plans
Preliminary Roost Assessment Supporting Information
Daylight and Sunlight Report Revised plans
Drainage Strategy Supporting Information
Planning Statement Supporting Information
Waste Minimisation Statement Supporting Information
160A Supporting Information
161 A Supporting Information
Energy Sustainability Report Supporting Information
Transport Statement Supporting Information
Additional Information
Rights of Applicants Aggrieved by Decision of Local Planning Authority
1
The proposal fails to provide any affordable housing for a development of this scale, which
would fail to maximise the contribution of the site to the supply of affordable housing in the London
Borough of Enfield. The proposal would be contrary to Policies H4 and H5 of the London Plan (2021),
Core Policies 3 and 46 of the Core Strategy (2010), DMD1 of the Development Management
Document (2014), Enfield's S106 SPD (2016), the Mayors Affordable Housing and Viability SPG and
the NPPF (2021).
2
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 maximise
the contribution of the site to the supply of larger homes (3+ bedrooms) in the London Borough of
Enfield. The proposal would therefore contrary to Strategic Objective 4 and Core Policy 5 of the Core
Strategy (2010), DMD 3 of the Development Management Document (2014) and the NPPF.
3
The development fails to secure a mechanism to secure a contribution to carbon reduction up
to zero carbon for regulated emissions and therefore fails to make an adequate contribution to tackling
climate change in facilitating environmentally sustainable development. Further, the application fails to
provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of education infrastructure, highway
improvements, employment and skills and child care provision and associated monitoring fees. The
proposal is contrary to Core Policies 8, 13, 16, 20, 24 and 46 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010),
Policy DMD 1, DMD 45, DMD 47, DMD 48, DMD 50, DMD 51 and DMD 53 of the Development
Management Document (2014), the associated S106 Supplementary Planning Document and the
NPPF (2021).
Show all 6 rows
4
The proposal, by reason of its siting to the shared boundaries and position of habitable room
windows, would result in a heightened sense of enclosure, impact to outlook, impact to privacy and
impact to the receipt of light. Cumulative the impact of the proposal would harmful to existing
residential units. The proposal would be contrary to the NPPF (2019), policy D4 of the London Plan
(2021), Core Policy 30 of the Council's Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DMD11 of the Council's
Development Management Document (2014).
5
The proposal, by virtue of its generally contrived internal layout, impact of the siting of the
proposed numerous habitable room windows resulting in poor outlook, or no outlook at all, a number of
single aspect flats and 3 flats having poor quality and minimal privacy amenity space, would result in
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 the NPPF (2021).
6
In the absence of an acceptable Sustainable Drainage Strategy, the proposed scheme fails to
appropriately consider and mitigate the risks of flooding from all possible sources and allow for
adequate measures to make the proposed development safe over its lifetime. Therefore, the proposal
is not compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2021), DMD 59, DMD 60, DMD
61, DMD 62 and DMD 63 of the Development Management Document (2014) and CP21, CP28 and
CP29 of the Core Strategy (2010).
Dated: 15 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
maria.demetri@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Application Form Supporting Information
104 Drawing
103 Drawing
102 Drawing
122 D Drawing
120 E Additional Information
123 Drawing
140 B Drawing
131A Additional Information
121 D Additional Information
130 B Drawing
132 Drawing
100 Drawing
DesignAccess Statement Supporting Information
Fire Statement Supporting Information
Air Quality Assessment Supporting Information
101 Drawing
Demolition Statement Revised plans
Health Impact Supporting Information
Noise Impact Assessment Supporting Information
Affordable Housing Statement Revised plans
Preliminary Roost Assessment Supporting Information
Daylight and Sunlight Report Revised plans
Drainage Strategy Supporting Information
Planning Statement Supporting Information
Waste Minimisation Statement Supporting Information
160A Supporting Information
161 A Supporting Information
Energy Sustainability Report Supporting Information
Transport Statement Supporting Information
Additional Information
Rights of Applicants Aggrieved by Decision of Local Planning Authority
Policies cited
H4H5Core Strategy 3Core Strategy 46DMD1NPPFCore Strategy 5DMD3Enfield Core Strategy 8Enfield Core Strategy 13Enfield Core Strategy 16Enfield Core Strategy 20Enfield Core Strategy 24Enfield Core Strategy 46DMD45DMD47DMD48DMD50DMD51DMD53D4Council's Core Strategy 30DMD11CP4DMD6DMD8DMD37DMD59DMD60DMD61DMD62DMD63CP21CP28CP29
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.