Planning application · Enfield
22/03768/FUL.
Land Rear Of 296 Hoe Lane Enfield EN1 4JL
Full / Other Planning at Land Rear Of 296 Hoe Lane Enfield EN1 4JL, received 7 Nov 2022 — refused on 10 Jan 2023 (delegated, Misbah Uddin).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
10 Jan 2023
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
10
Documents
10 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?
Erection of a single storey, detached dwelling house at rear, with courtyard garden, vehicle access, cycle and refuse storage, involving demolition of existing garage, concrete hardstanding and fencing.
Reference
22/03768/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN1 4JL
Ward
Council
Received
7 Nov 2022
Validated
15 Nov 2022
Target date
10 Jan 2023
Decision date
10 Jan 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
22/03768/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN1 4JL
Ward
Council
Received
7 Nov 2022
Validated
15 Nov 2022
Target date
10 Jan 2023
Decision date
10 Jan 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 10 Jan 2023, delegated decision by Misbah Uddin — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
7 Nov 2022
Application received
15 Nov 2022
Application validated
10 Jan 2023
Statutory target date
10 Jan 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Misbah Uddin
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
7 Nov 2022
Application received
15 Nov 2022
Application validated
10 Jan 2023
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
10 Jan 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Misbah Uddin
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by virtue of its, location, scale and design would be an
incongruous, inappropriate and not in keeping with the character and appearance of the prevailing
pattern of development in the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policy
D4 of the London Plan 2021, Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD7,
DMD8, and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
2
The existing access road does not provide allocated pedestrian area, which would result in
unsafe pedestrian movements, contrary to Policy T6.1 of the London Plan 2021, Policies CP24 and
CP25 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010, Policies DMD8 and DMD45 of the Enfield Development
Management Document 2014.
3
The proposed development, by virtue of its means of access, and location and layout would fail
to provide a convenient and accessible facility for managing waste generated by the development, ,
contrary to Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan 2021, Policy CP25 of the Enfield Core Strategy
(2010), Policies DMD45, DMD47 and DMD48 of the Enfield Development Management Document
(2014) and the Enfield Waste and Recycling Storage Planning Guidance (2020).
Dated: 10 January 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
misbah.uddin@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
300-P-01 REV B Site Location Plan Drawing
300-P-02 REV C Proposed Plans 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, location, scale and design would be an
incongruous, inappropriate and not in keeping with the character and appearance of the prevailing
pattern of development in the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policy
D4 of the London Plan 2021, Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD7,
DMD8, and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
2
The existing access road does not provide allocated pedestrian area, which would result in
unsafe pedestrian movements, contrary to Policy T6.1 of the London Plan 2021, Policies CP24 and
CP25 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010, Policies DMD8 and DMD45 of the Enfield Development
Management Document 2014.
3
The proposed development, by virtue of its means of access, and location and layout would fail
to provide a convenient and accessible facility for managing waste generated by the development, ,
contrary to Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan 2021, Policy CP25 of the Enfield Core Strategy
(2010), Policies DMD45, DMD47 and DMD48 of the Enfield Development Management Document
(2014) and the Enfield Waste and Recycling Storage Planning Guidance (2020).
Dated: 10 January 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
misbah.uddin@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
300-P-01 REV B Site Location Plan Drawing
300-P-02 REV C Proposed Plans 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
D4CP30DMD37NPPFT6.1CP24CP25DMD8DMD45D6DMD47DMD48
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.