Planning application · Enfield
22/03307/FUL.
215 Montagu Road London N18 2NA
Full / Other Planning at 215 Montagu Road London N18 2NA, received 26 Sep 2022 — refused on 27 Feb 2023 (delegated, Michael Kotoh-Mortty).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 Feb 2023
22 wks
Decision time
14 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
11
Documents
11 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?
Conversion of a single dwelling house to 2 self-contained flats involving single storey rear extension, rear dormer with front rooflights and re-build of front boundary wall to a maximum height of 1.2m.
Reference
22/03307/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N18 2NA
Ward
Council
Received
26 Sep 2022
Validated
9 Nov 2022
Target date
4 Jan 2023
Decision date
27 Feb 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
22/03307/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N18 2NA
Ward
Council
Received
26 Sep 2022
Validated
9 Nov 2022
Target date
4 Jan 2023
Decision date
27 Feb 2023
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 27 Feb 2023, delegated decision by Michael Kotoh-Mortty — 22 weeks from submission (14 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
26 Sep 2022
Application received
9 Nov 2022
Application validated
4 Jan 2023
Statutory target date
27 Feb 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Michael Kotoh-Mortty
26 Sep 2022
Application received
9 Nov 2022
Application validated
4 Jan 2023
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
27 Feb 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Michael Kotoh-Mortty
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development by virtue of its inadequate floorspace to serve the upper floor
family unit alongside limited outlook and head height would represent a substandard and inappropriate
form of accommodation which would not be capable of meeting the reasonable needs of occupiers
and would be detrimental to the residential amenities of future occupants. The proposal is thereby
contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP4 of the Enfield Plan Core Strategy, Policies
DMD5 and DMD8 of the Development Management Document, the Mayor of London Housing
Supplementary Planning Guidance, The Technical Housing Standards-Nationally Described Space
Standards and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).
2
The proposal by reason of its lack of amenity space to serve the first floor family unit would
represent a substandard and inappropriate form of accommodation which would not be capable of
meeting the reasonable needs of occupiers and would be detrimental to the residential amenities of
future occupants. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan, Policy CP4 of the
Enfield Plan Core Strategy, Policies DMD5, DMD8 and DMD9 of the Development Management
Document, the Mayor of London Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, The Technical Housing
Standards-Nationally Described Space Standards and the guidance contained within the National
Planning Policy Framework (2021).
3
The proposed rear dormer, due to the contrived, awkward poor design, excessive size, siting
and scale appears as a disproportionate, incongruous and unduly dominant form of development,
resulting in a form of roof extension that is considered to be overly dominant, obtrusive and
incongruous to the host property. It also fails to maintain an appropriate relationship with the terrace of
which the site forms a part. In this regard, the proposed dormer development is contrary to: Policy D4
of the London Plan (2021); CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010); DMD6, DMD8, DMD13 and DMD37 of
the Development Management Document (2014); and Section 7 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF, 2021).
4
No Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would
comply with the requirements set out in the NPPF and does not, therefore, provide a suitable basis for
assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development. Furthermore, the
proposal has failed to demonstrate measures to promote and manage sustainable drainage across the
site which inhibits the ability of the Local Planning Authority to fully assess whether the proposed
development would result in an increase in flood risk on, or off the site. The proposal is therefore
contrary to the advice contained within the NPPF (2021), London Plan policies SI12 and SI13, Enfield
Core Strategy Policies CP21 and CP28 and Enfield Development Management Document Policies
DMD59, DMD60, DMD61 and DMD62.
5
Insufficient information has been submitted pertaining to the provision of vehicle access,
parking, cycling and refuse storage at the site contrary to policies CP25 of the Core Strategy, T4, T5
and T6 of the London Plan (2021), DMD5, DMD8, DMD45 and DMD47 of the Development
Management Document as well as the requirements of Enfield Council's Revised Technical Standards
for Footway Crossovers (April 2013).
Dated: 27 February 2023
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 michael.kotoh-
mortty@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Location Plan Drawing
Exist. and Prop. Block Plan Drawing
Prop. Block Plan Drawing
Exist. Floor and Elevs. Drawing
Prop. Floor and Elevs. Drawing
Exist and Prop. Street Scene 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 proposed development by virtue of its inadequate floorspace to serve the upper floor
family unit alongside limited outlook and head height would represent a substandard and inappropriate
form of accommodation which would not be capable of meeting the reasonable needs of occupiers
and would be detrimental to the residential amenities of future occupants. The proposal is thereby
contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP4 of the Enfield Plan Core Strategy, Policies
DMD5 and DMD8 of the Development Management Document, the Mayor of London Housing
Supplementary Planning Guidance, The Technical Housing Standards-Nationally Described Space
Standards and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).
2
The proposal by reason of its lack of amenity space to serve the first floor family unit would
represent a substandard and inappropriate form of accommodation which would not be capable of
meeting the reasonable needs of occupiers and would be detrimental to the residential amenities of
future occupants. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan, Policy CP4 of the
Enfield Plan Core Strategy, Policies DMD5, DMD8 and DMD9 of the Development Management
Document, the Mayor of London Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, The Technical Housing
Standards-Nationally Described Space Standards and the guidance contained within the National
Planning Policy Framework (2021).
3
The proposed rear dormer, due to the contrived, awkward poor design, excessive size, siting
and scale appears as a disproportionate, incongruous and unduly dominant form of development,
resulting in a form of roof extension that is considered to be overly dominant, obtrusive and
incongruous to the host property. It also fails to maintain an appropriate relationship with the terrace of
which the site forms a part. In this regard, the proposed dormer development is contrary to: Policy D4
of the London Plan (2021); CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010); DMD6, DMD8, DMD13 and DMD37 of
the Development Management Document (2014); and Section 7 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF, 2021).
Show all 5 rows
4
No Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would
comply with the requirements set out in the NPPF and does not, therefore, provide a suitable basis for
assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development. Furthermore, the
proposal has failed to demonstrate measures to promote and manage sustainable drainage across the
site which inhibits the ability of the Local Planning Authority to fully assess whether the proposed
development would result in an increase in flood risk on, or off the site. The proposal is therefore
contrary to the advice contained within the NPPF (2021), London Plan policies SI12 and SI13, Enfield
Core Strategy Policies CP21 and CP28 and Enfield Development Management Document Policies
DMD59, DMD60, DMD61 and DMD62.
5
Insufficient information has been submitted pertaining to the provision of vehicle access,
parking, cycling and refuse storage at the site contrary to policies CP25 of the Core Strategy, T4, T5
and T6 of the London Plan (2021), DMD5, DMD8, DMD45 and DMD47 of the Development
Management Document as well as the requirements of Enfield Council's Revised Technical Standards
for Footway Crossovers (April 2013).
Dated: 27 February 2023
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 michael.kotoh-
mortty@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Location Plan Drawing
Exist. and Prop. Block Plan Drawing
Prop. Block Plan Drawing
Exist. Floor and Elevs. Drawing
Prop. Floor and Elevs. Drawing
Exist and Prop. Street Scene 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
D6CP4DMD5DMD8NPPFDMD9D4CP30DMD6DMD13DMD37National Planning Policy Framework 7CP21CP28CP25T4T5T6DMD45DMD47
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.