Planning application · Enfield
23/01144/FUL.
59 Langham Gardens London N21 1DL
Full / Other Planning at 59 Langham Gardens London N21 1DL, received 6 Apr 2023 — refused on 6 Oct 2023 by committee.
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
6 Oct 2023
26 wks
Decision time
18 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
10
Documents
10 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 family dwelling house to a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) for 6 residents (C4 use class)- RETROSPECTIVE.
Reference
23/01144/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N21 1DL
Ward
Council
Received
6 Apr 2023
Validated
17 Apr 2023
Target date
12 Jun 2023
Decision date
6 Oct 2023
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
23/01144/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N21 1DL
Ward
Council
Received
6 Apr 2023
Validated
17 Apr 2023
Target date
12 Jun 2023
Decision date
6 Oct 2023
Decision route
Planning committee
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 6 Oct 2023, determined by the planning committee — 26 weeks from submission (18 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
6 Apr 2023
Application received
17 Apr 2023
Application validated
12 Jun 2023
Statutory target date
6 Oct 2023
Committee decision: Refused
6 Apr 2023
Application received
17 Apr 2023
Application validated
12 Jun 2023
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
6 Oct 2023
Committee decision: Refused
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The retrospective HMO with associated refuse provisions and storage requirements constitutes
an over intensive use of the property and together with the increased activity, general noise and
disturbance associated with the level of occupation, results in demonstrable harm to the character and
appearance of the application site and the visual amenities of the street scene, contrary to Policies D4
of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD5, DMD8, DMD37
and DMD47 of the Development Management Document (2014).
2
The retrospective HMO, by virtue of the increase in activity, comings and goings, general noise
and disturbance and anti-social behaviour associated with the use and level of occupation detracts
from the residential character and amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring residential
properties and the amenities of the existing and future occupiers. This would be contrary to Policies
CP4, CP30 and CP32 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD5, DMD8, DMD37 and DMD68 of the
Development Management Document (2014), Policies D6 and D14 of the London Plan (2021) as well
as the objectives of the NPPF (2021).
3
The retrospective HMO by reason of its siting, layout, use and level of occupation results in an
unacceptable impact of overlooking and loss of privacy, that is significantly detrimental to the
residential amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining neighbouring properties. In this respect, the
proposal is contrary to policy CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010) and policy DMD8 of the Development
Management Document (2014).
4
The retrospective HMO by virtue of increased comings and goings associated with vehicle use
at the site and a lack of cycle storage facilities fails to demonstrate sufficient measures to promote
sustainable travel which would lead to an increase in air pollution at the site. The proposals are
thereby contrary to Core Strategy (2010) Policy CP24 and CP30, Development Management Plan
(2014) Policies DMD45, DMD47 and DMD65, Policies T2, T5 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021),
Enfield's Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers (April 2013) and the guidance
contained in the NPPF (2021).
5
The retrospective HMO into a 6 room 6 person HMO alongside a property management office
and storage room on first floor, would lead to relative overcrowding of occupants and thereby resulting
in a sub-standard form of accommodation at the site to the detriment of existing and future occupants.
The retrospective works are thereby contrary to Policies DMD3, DMD4, DMD5 and DMD8 of the
Development Management Document (2014), CP5 and CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010) and D6 of
the London Plan (2021) as well as the advice contained within the NPPF (2021).
Dated: 6 October 2023
Authorised on behalf of:
Karen Page
Head of Planning and Building Control
Housing, Regeneration and Development Department
Enfield Council
PO Box 53, Civic Centre
Silver Street, Enfield
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
Block Plan Drawing
Exist. (retro.) Floor Revised plans
Exist. (retro.) Elevs. 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 retrospective HMO with associated refuse provisions and storage requirements constitutes
an over intensive use of the property and together with the increased activity, general noise and
disturbance associated with the level of occupation, results in demonstrable harm to the character and
appearance of the application site and the visual amenities of the street scene, contrary to Policies D4
of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD5, DMD8, DMD37
and DMD47 of the Development Management Document (2014).
2
The retrospective HMO, by virtue of the increase in activity, comings and goings, general noise
and disturbance and anti-social behaviour associated with the use and level of occupation detracts
from the residential character and amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring residential
properties and the amenities of the existing and future occupiers. This would be contrary to Policies
CP4, CP30 and CP32 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD5, DMD8, DMD37 and DMD68 of the
Development Management Document (2014), Policies D6 and D14 of the London Plan (2021) as well
as the objectives of the NPPF (2021).
3
The retrospective HMO by reason of its siting, layout, use and level of occupation results in an
unacceptable impact of overlooking and loss of privacy, that is significantly detrimental to the
residential amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining neighbouring properties. In this respect, the
proposal is contrary to policy CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010) and policy DMD8 of the Development
Management Document (2014).
Show all 5 rows
4
The retrospective HMO by virtue of increased comings and goings associated with vehicle use
at the site and a lack of cycle storage facilities fails to demonstrate sufficient measures to promote
sustainable travel which would lead to an increase in air pollution at the site. The proposals are
thereby contrary to Core Strategy (2010) Policy CP24 and CP30, Development Management Plan
(2014) Policies DMD45, DMD47 and DMD65, Policies T2, T5 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021),
Enfield's Revised Technical Standards for Footway Crossovers (April 2013) and the guidance
contained in the NPPF (2021).
5
The retrospective HMO into a 6 room 6 person HMO alongside a property management office
and storage room on first floor, would lead to relative overcrowding of occupants and thereby resulting
in a sub-standard form of accommodation at the site to the detriment of existing and future occupants.
The retrospective works are thereby contrary to Policies DMD3, DMD4, DMD5 and DMD8 of the
Development Management Document (2014), CP5 and CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010) and D6 of
the London Plan (2021) as well as the advice contained within the NPPF (2021).
Dated: 6 October 2023
Authorised on behalf of:
Karen Page
Head of Planning and Building Control
Housing, Regeneration and Development Department
Enfield Council
PO Box 53, Civic Centre
Silver Street, Enfield
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
Block Plan Drawing
Exist. (retro.) Floor Revised plans
Exist. (retro.) Elevs. 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
D4CP30DMD5DMD8DMD37DMD47CP4CP32DMD68D6D14NPPFT2T5T6.1CP24DMD3DMD4CP5
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 (report to committee)
Determined at committee
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer (report to committee)
Show all 4 rows
Determined at committee
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.