Planning application · Enfield
22/00174/FUL.
99 And 99A Morton Way London N14 7AN
Full / Other Planning at 99 And 99A Morton Way London N14 7AN, received 18 Jan 2022 — refused on 1 Apr 2022 (delegated, Tendai Mutasa).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
1 Apr 2022
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
3
Documents
3 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?
Detached rear double garage with vehicular crossover.
Reference
22/00174/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N14 7AN
Ward
Council
Received
18 Jan 2022
Validated
2 Feb 2022
Target date
30 Mar 2022
Decision date
1 Apr 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
22/00174/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N14 7AN
Ward
Council
Received
18 Jan 2022
Validated
2 Feb 2022
Target date
30 Mar 2022
Decision date
1 Apr 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 1 Apr 2022, delegated decision by Tendai Mutasa — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
18 Jan 2022
Application received
2 Feb 2022
Application validated
30 Mar 2022
Statutory target date
1 Apr 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Tendai Mutasa
18 Jan 2022
Application received
2 Feb 2022
Application validated
30 Mar 2022
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
1 Apr 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Tendai Mutasa
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed vehicle crossover would lead to a loss of on-street parking and negatively impact
on the existing character of the area and streetscape resulting in the loss of grass verges and the
creation of an extremely wide vehicle crossover that would be in excess of the maximum width set out
in our guidance document contrary to Policies T2 and D8 of the London Plan 2021, Core Strategy
(2010) Policy CP30 and Development Management Document (2014) Policies DMD37 and DMD46.
2
The proposals would have vehicles to reverse in or out of the garages having an impact on the
free flow of traffic on the adjoining highway. The positioning of the garage entrances located so closely
to the footway means that the required essential amount of visibility between the vehicle joining the
carriageway and users of the footway cannot be achieved, therefore the proposals cannot ensure that
they would not affect the safety of pedestrians on the adjoining footway. As such, the proposal would
be contrary to the Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers 2013, Policies T1, T2 and T6
of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP24 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD45 and DMD46
of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 1 April 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
tendai.mutasa@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
260-201 Drawing
260-202 Drawing
Additional Information
1 It is noted that the plans submitted with a previous application and the application form for this
current application shows trees at the rear in the position of the proposed garages and no tree survey
has been submitted with this application. If this application was being recommended for approval the
Tree Officer would have been consulted on this application further details requested. . As such any
future applications should address the tree issue.
Rights of Applicants Aggrieved by Decision of Local Planning Authority
1
The proposed vehicle crossover would lead to a loss of on-street parking and negatively impact
on the existing character of the area and streetscape resulting in the loss of grass verges and the
creation of an extremely wide vehicle crossover that would be in excess of the maximum width set out
in our guidance document contrary to Policies T2 and D8 of the London Plan 2021, Core Strategy
(2010) Policy CP30 and Development Management Document (2014) Policies DMD37 and DMD46.
2
The proposals would have vehicles to reverse in or out of the garages having an impact on the
free flow of traffic on the adjoining highway. The positioning of the garage entrances located so closely
to the footway means that the required essential amount of visibility between the vehicle joining the
carriageway and users of the footway cannot be achieved, therefore the proposals cannot ensure that
they would not affect the safety of pedestrians on the adjoining footway. As such, the proposal would
be contrary to the Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers 2013, Policies T1, T2 and T6
of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP24 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD45 and DMD46
of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 1 April 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
tendai.mutasa@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
260-201 Drawing
260-202 Drawing
Additional Information
1 It is noted that the plans submitted with a previous application and the application form for this
current application shows trees at the rear in the position of the proposed garages and no tree survey
has been submitted with this application. If this application was being recommended for approval the
Tree Officer would have been consulted on this application further details requested. . As such any
future applications should address the tree issue.
Rights of Applicants Aggrieved by Decision of Local Planning Authority
Policies cited
T2D8CP30T1T6CP24DMD45DMD46
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.