Planning application · Enfield
23/02849/FUL.
Unit C7 Angel Road Works Advent Way London N18 3BH
Full / Other Planning at Unit C7 Angel Road Works Advent Way London N18 3BH, received 29 Aug 2023 — refused on 22 Jul 2024 (delegated, Michael Kotoh-Mortty).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
22 Jul 2024
47 wks
Decision time
39 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
23
Documents
23 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?
Change of use of first and second floor from (Class B8) to restaurant and lounge (Sui Generis) (Part-retrospective).
Reference
23/02849/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N18 3BH
Ward
Council
Received
29 Aug 2023
Validated
8 Jan 2024
Target date
4 Mar 2024
Decision date
22 Jul 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
23/02849/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N18 3BH
Ward
Council
Received
29 Aug 2023
Validated
8 Jan 2024
Target date
4 Mar 2024
Decision date
22 Jul 2024
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 22 Jul 2024, delegated decision by Michael Kotoh-Mortty — 47 weeks from submission (39 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
29 Aug 2023
Application received
8 Jan 2024
Application validated
4 Mar 2024
Statutory target date
22 Jul 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Michael Kotoh-Mortty
29 Aug 2023
Application received
8 Jan 2024
Application validated
4 Mar 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
22 Jul 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Michael Kotoh-Mortty
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
There is evidenced need for industrial floorspace in Enfield. The proposed development,
resulting in a net loss of SIL floorspace and introducing uses that do not support SIL operations,
conflicts with Policies E4 and E5 of the London Plan, Core Policy 14 of the Enfield Core Strategy, and
Policies DMD 19, DMD 21 and DMD 32 of the Enfield Development Management Document.
2
The proposed development, failing to demonstrate that the proposal would not be detrimental
to highways safety and failing to include adequate provision of safe pedestrian access and bicycle
parking, conflicts with Policies T4, T5, T6 and T7 of the London Plan, Core Policies 24 and 25 of the
Enfield Core Strategy and Policies DMD 32, DMD 45, DMD 47 and DMD 48 of the Enfield
Development Management Document.
3
The proposed development, in the absence of adequate flood risk assessment and sustainable
drainage strategy, fails to demonstrate how the proposed measures manage the risk of flooding and
utilise SuDS following the drainage hierarchy in the London Plan, Policies SI 13 of the London Plan,
CP 21 and CP28 of the Enfield Core Strategy, DMD59, DMD60, DMD61, DMD62 of the Enfield
Development Management Document and the Enfield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.
Dated: 22 July 2024
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
Existing and Proposed Plans Drawing
Design and Access Statement Supporting Information
Sustainable Drainage Strategy Supporting Information
Transport Technical Note Supporting 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
There is evidenced need for industrial floorspace in Enfield. The proposed development,
resulting in a net loss of SIL floorspace and introducing uses that do not support SIL operations,
conflicts with Policies E4 and E5 of the London Plan, Core Policy 14 of the Enfield Core Strategy, and
Policies DMD 19, DMD 21 and DMD 32 of the Enfield Development Management Document.
2
The proposed development, failing to demonstrate that the proposal would not be detrimental
to highways safety and failing to include adequate provision of safe pedestrian access and bicycle
parking, conflicts with Policies T4, T5, T6 and T7 of the London Plan, Core Policies 24 and 25 of the
Enfield Core Strategy and Policies DMD 32, DMD 45, DMD 47 and DMD 48 of the Enfield
Development Management Document.
3
The proposed development, in the absence of adequate flood risk assessment and sustainable
drainage strategy, fails to demonstrate how the proposed measures manage the risk of flooding and
utilise SuDS following the drainage hierarchy in the London Plan, Policies SI 13 of the London Plan,
CP 21 and CP28 of the Enfield Core Strategy, DMD59, DMD60, DMD61, DMD62 of the Enfield
Development Management Document and the Enfield Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.
Dated: 22 July 2024
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
Existing and Proposed Plans Drawing
Design and Access Statement Supporting Information
Sustainable Drainage Strategy Supporting Information
Transport Technical Note Supporting 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
E4E5Enfield Core Strategy 14DMD19DMD21DMD32T4T5T6T7Enfield Core Strategy 24Enfield Core Strategy 25DMD45DMD47DMD48SI13CP21CP28DMD59DMD60DMD61DMD62
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.