Planning application · Enfield
24/00801/FUL.
Car Park Rear Of 62 And 64 Fore Street N18
Full / Other Planning at Car Park Rear Of 62 And 64 Fore Street N18, received 13 Mar 2024 — refused on 24 May 2024 (delegated, Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
24 May 2024
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
16
Documents
16 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?
Change of use from car park to a hand car wash, together with extended metal canopy cover, acoustic panels and extended front brick wall.
Reference
24/00801/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
13 Mar 2024
Validated
27 Mar 2024
Target date
22 May 2024
Decision date
24 May 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
24/00801/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
13 Mar 2024
Validated
27 Mar 2024
Target date
22 May 2024
Decision date
24 May 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 24 May 2024, delegated decision by Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
13 Mar 2024
Application received
27 Mar 2024
Application validated
22 May 2024
Statutory target date
24 May 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Mahboubeh Bahrami-Jovein
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
13 Mar 2024
Application received
27 Mar 2024
Application validated
22 May 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
24 May 2024
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 development, by reason of its siting, design and visibility from the public realm
would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Fore Street Conservation Area
and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and surrounding area, being
contrary to Policies D3,D4, D8 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021; Policies CP30 and CP31 of the
Core Strategy 2010 and Policies DMD37, DMD39 and DMD44 of the Enfield Development
Management Document 2014.
2
The submitted information does not consider how bin access would be maintained for the lane
uses front Fore Street and the potential impact on the site's operation. Additionally in the absence of a
traffic survey demonstrating otherwise, the proposed change of use by virtue of its nature and function
is considered to give rise to increased traffic movements resulting in additional cars waiting on Alpha
Road, causing obstruction to access and the free flow and turning of other vehicles, as such the
proposals are considered contrary to Policies CP24 and CP25 of the Core Strategy; DMD37, DMD45
and DMD47 of the Development Management Document and 6.9 and 6.13 of the London Plan.
3
The proposed development by virtue of its depth and height along the common boundary with
No.2 Alpha Road would result in an unacceptable noise, sense of enclosure and would have
overbearing impact on the existing amenity of the adjoining occupiers of this property in terms of loss
of outlook and light contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021; CP30 of the Core
Strategy 2010 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document 2014.
4
The proposed development, in the absence of an adequate sustainable drainage strategy and
acceptable arrangements for the disposal of commercial waste run-off water fails to demonstrate how
proposed measures manage the risk of flooding from surface water run-off and follow the drainage
hierarchy in the London Plan and would increase the risk of water pollution contrary to Policies SI 12
and SI 13 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP28 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010, Policies DMD59,
DMD60, DMD61, DMD62 and of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 24 May 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
mahboubeh.bahrami-jovein@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
EXISTING FRONT & SIDE ELEVATION 02 Drawing
EXISTING REAR & SIDE ELEVATIONS 03 Drawing
PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN 05 Drawing
PROPOSED FRONT & SIDE ELEVATION 07 Drawing
PROPOSED REAR & SIDE ELEVATION 08 Drawing
The location plan Drawing
Drainage Documentation Supporting Information
Noise Impact Assessment 01 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
The proposed development, by reason of its siting, design and visibility from the public realm
would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Fore Street Conservation Area
and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and surrounding area, being
contrary to Policies D3,D4, D8 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021; Policies CP30 and CP31 of the
Core Strategy 2010 and Policies DMD37, DMD39 and DMD44 of the Enfield Development
Management Document 2014.
2
The submitted information does not consider how bin access would be maintained for the lane
uses front Fore Street and the potential impact on the site's operation. Additionally in the absence of a
traffic survey demonstrating otherwise, the proposed change of use by virtue of its nature and function
is considered to give rise to increased traffic movements resulting in additional cars waiting on Alpha
Road, causing obstruction to access and the free flow and turning of other vehicles, as such the
proposals are considered contrary to Policies CP24 and CP25 of the Core Strategy; DMD37, DMD45
and DMD47 of the Development Management Document and 6.9 and 6.13 of the London Plan.
3
The proposed development by virtue of its depth and height along the common boundary with
No.2 Alpha Road would result in an unacceptable noise, sense of enclosure and would have
overbearing impact on the existing amenity of the adjoining occupiers of this property in terms of loss
of outlook and light contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021; CP30 of the Core
Strategy 2010 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document 2014.
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposed development, in the absence of an adequate sustainable drainage strategy and
acceptable arrangements for the disposal of commercial waste run-off water fails to demonstrate how
proposed measures manage the risk of flooding from surface water run-off and follow the drainage
hierarchy in the London Plan and would increase the risk of water pollution contrary to Policies SI 12
and SI 13 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP28 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010, Policies DMD59,
DMD60, DMD61, DMD62 and of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 24 May 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
mahboubeh.bahrami-jovein@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
EXISTING FRONT & SIDE ELEVATION 02 Drawing
EXISTING REAR & SIDE ELEVATIONS 03 Drawing
PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN 05 Drawing
PROPOSED FRONT & SIDE ELEVATION 07 Drawing
PROPOSED REAR & SIDE ELEVATION 08 Drawing
The location plan Drawing
Drainage Documentation Supporting Information
Noise Impact Assessment 01 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
D3D4D8HC1CP30CP31DMD37DMD39DMD44CP24CP25DMD45DMD47London Plan 6.9London Plan 6.13SI12SI13CP28
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.