Planning Atlas
Planning AtlasEnfieldHighfield ward22/04092/HOU
Planning application · Enfield

22/04092/HOU.

112 Hedge Lane London N13 5ST

Householder at 112 Hedge Lane London N13 5ST, received 8 Dec 2022 — refused on 13 Mar 2023 (delegated, Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein).

EnfieldHighfieldN13 5ST22/04092/HOU
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
13 Mar 2023
14 wks
Decision time
6 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?

Vehicular access and construction of hard standing.

Reference
22/04092/HOU
Type
Householder
Agent / consultant
Postcode
N13 5ST
Council
Received
8 Dec 2022
Validated
17 Jan 2023
Target date
14 Mar 2023
Decision date
13 Mar 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Reference
22/04092/HOU
Type
Householder
Show all 16 rows
Agent / consultant
Postcode
N13 5ST
Council
Received
8 Dec 2022
Validated
17 Jan 2023
Target date
14 Mar 2023
Decision date
13 Mar 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Documents

What was filed?

Document
Published
View
Report
30 Nov 2023
Report
14 Mar 2023
Decision Notice
13 Mar 2023
SITE LOCATION PLAN
19 Jan 2023
HARDSTANDING CROSS SECTION
19 Jan 2023
Application Form - Without Personal Data
7 Dec 2022
Block plan of the site
7 Dec 2022
LAYOUT PLAN - EXISTING
7 Dec 2022
LAYOUT PLAN - PROPOSED
7 Dec 2022
EXISTING BLOCK PLAN
7 Dec 2022
Report
30 Nov 2023
Report
14 Mar 2023
Decision Notice
13 Mar 2023
Show all 10 rows
SITE LOCATION PLAN
19 Jan 2023
HARDSTANDING CROSS SECTION
19 Jan 2023
Application Form - Without Personal Data
7 Dec 2022
Block plan of the site
7 Dec 2022
LAYOUT PLAN - EXISTING
7 Dec 2022
LAYOUT PLAN - PROPOSED
7 Dec 2022
EXISTING BLOCK PLAN
7 Dec 2022

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 13 Mar 2023, delegated decision by Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein — 14 weeks from submission (6 over the 8-week target).

Timeline

Date
Event
8 Dec 2022
Application received
17 Jan 2023
Application validated
14 Mar 2023
Statutory target date
13 Mar 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
8 Dec 2022
Application received
17 Jan 2023
Application validated
14 Mar 2023
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
13 Mar 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed

Why it was refused

Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed vehicular access would result in the increased intensity of vehicle movements onto a classified road and lead to additional vehicles stopping, slowing, turning and reversing from, or onto Hedge Lane to the detriment of road safety and free flow of traffic including pedestrians and cyclists, The proposals are thereby contrary to policies CP24, CP25 and CP30 of the Core Strategy, DMD46 of the Development Management Document Policies as well as the Council's Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers (April 2013) and the guidance contained within the NPPF (2021) Dated: 13 March 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 mahboubeh.bahrami- jovein@enfield.gov.uk. List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice: Title/Number Version TYPE LAYOUT PLAN - EXISTING Drawing LAYOUT PLAN - PROPOSED Drawing HARDSTANDING CROSS SECTION Drawing SITE LOCATION PLAN Drawing Additional Information APPEAL 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 vehicular access would result in the increased intensity of vehicle movements onto a classified road and lead to additional vehicles stopping, slowing, turning and reversing from, or onto Hedge Lane to the detriment of road safety and free flow of traffic including pedestrians and cyclists, The proposals are thereby contrary to policies CP24, CP25 and CP30 of the Core Strategy, DMD46 of the Development Management Document Policies as well as the Council's Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers (April 2013) and the guidance contained within the NPPF (2021) Dated: 13 March 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 mahboubeh.bahrami- jovein@enfield.gov.uk. List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice: Title/Number Version TYPE LAYOUT PLAN - EXISTING Drawing LAYOUT PLAN - PROPOSED Drawing HARDSTANDING CROSS SECTION Drawing SITE LOCATION PLAN Drawing Additional Information APPEAL 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
CP24CP25CP30DMD46NPPF

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.