Planning application · Enfield
21/03547/FUL.
131A Chase Side Enfield EN2 6NN
Full / Other Planning at 131A Chase Side Enfield EN2 6NN, received 13 Sep 2021 — refused on 26 Jul 2022 (delegated, Fidel Miller).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
26 Jul 2022
45 wks
Decision time
37 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
11
Documents
11 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?
Change of use from warehouse / storage (Class B1a) to residential (Class C3), involving demolition of existing and construction of 2 x self contained flats, including accommodation in loftspace with rear dormer, refuse and cycle areas and private amenity space.
Reference
21/03547/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN2 6NN
Ward
Council
Received
13 Sep 2021
Validated
24 Sep 2021
Target date
19 Nov 2021
Decision date
26 Jul 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
21/03547/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN2 6NN
Ward
Council
Received
13 Sep 2021
Validated
24 Sep 2021
Target date
19 Nov 2021
Decision date
26 Jul 2022
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 26 Jul 2022, delegated decision by Fidel Miller — 45 weeks from submission (37 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
13 Sep 2021
Application received
24 Sep 2021
Application validated
19 Nov 2021
Statutory target date
26 Jul 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Fidel Miller
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
13 Sep 2021
Application received
24 Sep 2021
Application validated
19 Nov 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
26 Jul 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Fidel Miller
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of its bulk, scale, mass, depth and poor design would
fail to respect the pattern of development that characterises the surrounding area resulting in
demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the local area and street scene contrary to the
Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), DMD6
DMD8 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) and the National
Planning Policy Framework (2021) as a whole.
2
The proposed development by reason of the increased massing on the western boundary
would result in an unacceptable loss of outlook, increased sense of enclosure, overshadowing and
loss of natural daylight and sunlight to neighbouring residential occupiers of No 131b, No 129b and No
127 Chase Side. As such, the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core
Strategy (2010) and policies DMD8 and DMD10 of the Enfield Development Management Document
(2014) and the NPPF taken as a whole.
3
The proposed development by reason of its inadequate floor to ceiling heights and the
provision of a triplex unit would represent a substandard form of accommodation failing to meet the
criteria of Policy D6 of the London plan (2021), Policy CP4 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), Policy
DMD 8 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) and the NPPF 2021 taken as a
whole.
4
The proposed development in the absence of outdoor amenity space for the future occupiers of
flat 2 would create poor living conditions for future occupiers of the said property. Contrary to policies
D6 of the London Plan 2021 and policy DMD 8 and DMD 9 of the development management
document 2014 and the NPPF taken as a whole.
5
The proposed development by reason of the proposed cramped refuse and recycling areas
fails to meet the requirements of policies SI 7 and SI 8 of the London Plan 2021, policy DMD 8 of the
development management document 2014 and the NPPF taken as a whole.
6
The proposed development by reason of the poor cycle storage arrangements would be
contrary to Policy T5 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP24 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policy
DMD45 of the Development Management Document (2014).
7
The proposed development, in the absence of an adequate sustainable drainage strategy, fails
to demonstrate how proposed measures manage the risk of flooding from surface water run-off and
follow the drainage hierarchy in the London Plan, contrary to Policies SI 13 of the London Plan (2021),
CP21 and CP28 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), DMD59, DMD60, DMD61 and DMD62 of the
Enfield Development Management Document (2014) and the Enfield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
(2008) and the NPPF taken as a whole.
8
The applicant has failed to submit an energy report to demonstrate how the proposed
development shall meet the requirement of carbon zero development as part of the reduction in Part L
2013 Building regulations C02 emissions required for residential accommodation. As such the
development would be contrary to Policy SI 2 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP20 of the Core
Strategy (2010) and Policy DMD 49 and DMD 51 of the Development Management Document (2014)
and the NPPF taken as a whole.
Dated: 26 July 2022
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
fidel.miller@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Design and Access Statement Supporting Information
Location Plan Drawing
Covering letter Additional Information
ATAC.CS.21.9 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.6 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.8 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.7 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.1 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.3 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.2 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.4 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.5 Drawing
Additional Information
0 The council engages with all applicants in a
1
The proposed development, by reason of its bulk, scale, mass, depth and poor design would
fail to respect the pattern of development that characterises the surrounding area resulting in
demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the local area and street scene contrary to the
Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), DMD6
DMD8 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) and the National
Planning Policy Framework (2021) as a whole.
2
The proposed development by reason of the increased massing on the western boundary
would result in an unacceptable loss of outlook, increased sense of enclosure, overshadowing and
loss of natural daylight and sunlight to neighbouring residential occupiers of No 131b, No 129b and No
127 Chase Side. As such, the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core
Strategy (2010) and policies DMD8 and DMD10 of the Enfield Development Management Document
(2014) and the NPPF taken as a whole.
3
The proposed development by reason of its inadequate floor to ceiling heights and the
provision of a triplex unit would represent a substandard form of accommodation failing to meet the
criteria of Policy D6 of the London plan (2021), Policy CP4 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), Policy
DMD 8 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) and the NPPF 2021 taken as a
whole.
Show all 8 rows
4
The proposed development in the absence of outdoor amenity space for the future occupiers of
flat 2 would create poor living conditions for future occupiers of the said property. Contrary to policies
D6 of the London Plan 2021 and policy DMD 8 and DMD 9 of the development management
document 2014 and the NPPF taken as a whole.
5
The proposed development by reason of the proposed cramped refuse and recycling areas
fails to meet the requirements of policies SI 7 and SI 8 of the London Plan 2021, policy DMD 8 of the
development management document 2014 and the NPPF taken as a whole.
6
The proposed development by reason of the poor cycle storage arrangements would be
contrary to Policy T5 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP24 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policy
DMD45 of the Development Management Document (2014).
7
The proposed development, in the absence of an adequate sustainable drainage strategy, fails
to demonstrate how proposed measures manage the risk of flooding from surface water run-off and
follow the drainage hierarchy in the London Plan, contrary to Policies SI 13 of the London Plan (2021),
CP21 and CP28 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), DMD59, DMD60, DMD61 and DMD62 of the
Enfield Development Management Document (2014) and the Enfield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
(2008) and the NPPF taken as a whole.
8
The applicant has failed to submit an energy report to demonstrate how the proposed
development shall meet the requirement of carbon zero development as part of the reduction in Part L
2013 Building regulations C02 emissions required for residential accommodation. As such the
development would be contrary to Policy SI 2 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP20 of the Core
Strategy (2010) and Policy DMD 49 and DMD 51 of the Development Management Document (2014)
and the NPPF taken as a whole.
Dated: 26 July 2022
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
fidel.miller@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Design and Access Statement Supporting Information
Location Plan Drawing
Covering letter Additional Information
ATAC.CS.21.9 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.6 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.8 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.7 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.1 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.3 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.2 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.4 Drawing
ATAC.CS.21.5 Drawing
Additional Information
0 The council engages with all applicants in a
Policies cited
D3D4CP30DMD8DMD37NPPFDMD10CP4D6SI7SI8T5CP24DMD45SI13CP21CP28DMD59DMD60DMD61DMD62SI2CP20DMD49DMD51
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.