Planning application · Enfield
21/03264/FUL.
113 Hertford Road London N9 7EE
Full / Other Planning at 113 Hertford Road London N9 7EE, received 24 Aug 2021 — refused on 5 Nov 2024 (delegated, Tendai Mutasa).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
5 Nov 2024
167 wks
Decision time
159 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?
Change of use from Office (A2) into House in Multiple Occupation-HMO(Sui Genesis) incorporating a 2-storey rear extension and conversion of roofspace into habitable rooms, new roof involving increase in roof height and rooflights.
Reference
21/03264/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N9 7EE
Ward
Council
Received
24 Aug 2021
Validated
31 Aug 2021
Target date
26 Oct 2021
Decision date
5 Nov 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
21/03264/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N9 7EE
Ward
Council
Received
24 Aug 2021
Validated
31 Aug 2021
Target date
26 Oct 2021
Decision date
5 Nov 2024
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 5 Nov 2024, delegated decision by Tendai Mutasa — 167 weeks from submission (159 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
24 Aug 2021
Application received
31 Aug 2021
Application validated
26 Oct 2021
Statutory target date
5 Nov 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Tendai Mutasa
24 Aug 2021
Application received
31 Aug 2021
Application validated
26 Oct 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
5 Nov 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Tendai Mutasa
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The change of use, in the absence of adequate information to demonstrate that the site is no
longer suitable and viable for continued employment use, would result in a loss of Use Class E,
contrary to Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023; Policies E1 and E2 of the
London Plan (2021), CP19 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and DMD22 of the Enfield
Development Management Plan
2
The proposed two storey rear extension by reason of its siting, size, bulk and design would
result in an overly dominant development that would be out of keeping with and detrimental to the
visual amenities of the subject site and the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The
proposal is contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023; Policy D3 of the
London Plan (2021), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010 and Policies DMD8, DMD11 and
DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document 2014.
3
The proposed development, by reason of the lack of defensible space to ground floor
accommodation resulting in lack of privacy for future occupiersand the loft residential units poor
internal layouts and lack of outlook would cumulatively result in sub-standard accommodation levels
for future occupiers of the rooms. As such, the development is contrary to Policy D3 of the London
Plan (2021), Policies CP4 and CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DMD8 of the
Enfield Development Management Document (2014) and guidance in the London Plan Housing
Standards (adopted March 2016).
4
The proposed two storey rear extension by virtue of its siting, scale and bulk along the shared
boundary would be detrimental to the residential amenities due to loss of daylight, loss of outlook and
overbearing impact to the occupiers of 2 Croyland Road. The proposals are thereby contrary to
policies CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010), DMD6, DMD8, DMD 11 and DMD37 of the Development
Management Document (2014), D4 of the London Plan (2021) and the advice contained within the
NPPF (2023).
5
The Flood Risk Assessment submitted has provided insufficient information to demonstrate
that the proposed development would be safe from flooding and would not increase flood risk
elsewhere. This is contrary to guidance in Section 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023;
Policy S1 12 C of the London Plan 2021; Policy CP28 of the Core Strategy 2010 and Policy DMD61 of
the Development Management Document 2014.
Dated: 5 November 2024
Authorised on behalf of:
Karen Page
Head of Planning and Building Control
Housing, Regeneration and Development Department
Enfield Council
PO Box 53, Civic Centre
Silver Street, Enfield
EN1 3XE
If you have any questions about this decision, please contact the planning officer
tendai.mutasa@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
SE/11HR/05 Drawing
SE/11HR/04 REV B Drawing
SE/11HR/03 REV B Drawing
SE/11HR/06 Drawing
PM/3847/01 Drawing
PM/3847/02 Drawing
Additional Information
APPEAL GUIDANCE:
Should you (an applicant or agent) feel aggrieved by the decision of the Council to either refuse
permission or to grant permission subject to conditions, you can
1
The change of use, in the absence of adequate information to demonstrate that the site is no
longer suitable and viable for continued employment use, would result in a loss of Use Class E,
contrary to Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023; Policies E1 and E2 of the
London Plan (2021), CP19 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and DMD22 of the Enfield
Development Management Plan
2
The proposed two storey rear extension by reason of its siting, size, bulk and design would
result in an overly dominant development that would be out of keeping with and detrimental to the
visual amenities of the subject site and the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The
proposal is contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023; Policy D3 of the
London Plan (2021), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010 and Policies DMD8, DMD11 and
DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document 2014.
3
The proposed development, by reason of the lack of defensible space to ground floor
accommodation resulting in lack of privacy for future occupiersand the loft residential units poor
internal layouts and lack of outlook would cumulatively result in sub-standard accommodation levels
for future occupiers of the rooms. As such, the development is contrary to Policy D3 of the London
Plan (2021), Policies CP4 and CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DMD8 of the
Enfield Development Management Document (2014) and guidance in the London Plan Housing
Standards (adopted March 2016).
Show all 5 rows
4
The proposed two storey rear extension by virtue of its siting, scale and bulk along the shared
boundary would be detrimental to the residential amenities due to loss of daylight, loss of outlook and
overbearing impact to the occupiers of 2 Croyland Road. The proposals are thereby contrary to
policies CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010), DMD6, DMD8, DMD 11 and DMD37 of the Development
Management Document (2014), D4 of the London Plan (2021) and the advice contained within the
NPPF (2023).
5
The Flood Risk Assessment submitted has provided insufficient information to demonstrate
that the proposed development would be safe from flooding and would not increase flood risk
elsewhere. This is contrary to guidance in Section 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023;
Policy S1 12 C of the London Plan 2021; Policy CP28 of the Core Strategy 2010 and Policy DMD61 of
the Development Management Document 2014.
Dated: 5 November 2024
Authorised on behalf of:
Karen Page
Head of Planning and Building Control
Housing, Regeneration and Development Department
Enfield Council
PO Box 53, Civic Centre
Silver Street, Enfield
EN1 3XE
If you have any questions about this decision, please contact the planning officer
tendai.mutasa@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
SE/11HR/05 Drawing
SE/11HR/04 REV B Drawing
SE/11HR/03 REV B Drawing
SE/11HR/06 Drawing
PM/3847/01 Drawing
PM/3847/02 Drawing
Additional Information
APPEAL GUIDANCE:
Should you (an applicant or agent) feel aggrieved by the decision of the Council to either refuse
permission or to grant permission subject to conditions, you can
Policies cited
National Planning Policy Framework 7E1E2CP19DMD22NPPFNational Planning Policy Framework 12D3CP30DMD8DMD11DMD37CP4DMD6D4National Planning Policy Framework 14CP28DMD61
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.