Planning application · Enfield
24/01249/FUL.
19 And 21 Kendal Gardens London N18 1NF
Full / Other Planning at 19 And 21 Kendal Gardens London N18 1NF, received 16 Apr 2024 — refused on 1 Nov 2024 (delegated, Michael Kotoh-Mortty).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
1 Nov 2024
28 wks
Decision time
20 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
14
Documents
14 linked
1
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 from Use Class C3 (dwelling houses) to Use Class C1 (guest house) including single storey rear extension at No. 19 - (RETROSPECTIVE)
Reference
24/01249/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N18 1NF
Ward
Council
Received
16 Apr 2024
Validated
19 Apr 2024
Decision date
1 Nov 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
24/01249/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
N18 1NF
Ward
Council
Received
16 Apr 2024
Validated
19 Apr 2024
Decision date
1 Nov 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 1 Nov 2024, delegated decision by Michael Kotoh-Mortty — 28 weeks from submission (20 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
16 Apr 2024
Application received
19 Apr 2024
Application validated
1 Nov 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Michael Kotoh-Mortty
16 Apr 2024
Application received
19 Apr 2024
Application validated
1 Nov 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Michael Kotoh-Mortty
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The retrospective change of use results in the loss of both properties at nos. 19 and 21 Kendal
Gardens N18 1NF respectively that would be more appropriately occupied as single family dwelling
houses and undermines the need to ensure that a range of housing types are available within the
Borough with particular regard to the need to provide appropriate accommodation for family
occupation. Furthermore, insufficient details have been provided to demonstrate that there is a specific
need for a hotel at this location and no alternative locations are available. The retrospective change of
use is thereby contrary to Policies DMD3, DMD4 and DMD31 of the Development Management
Document (2014), CP5, CP12 and CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010) and H1, H8 and H10 of the
London Plan (2021) as well as the advice contained within the NPPF (2023) and the Enfield Strategic
Housing Market Assessment (2015).
2
The retrospective change of use, by virtue of increase in activity, comings and goings, general
noise and disturbance associated with the retrospective guest house development detracts from the
residential character and amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring residential
properties. This is contrary to Policies CP12 and CP30 of the Core Strategy, Policies DMD4, DMD8,
DMD31, DMD37 and DMD68 of the Development Management Document, Policy D14 of the London
Plan (2021) as well as the objectives of the NPPF (2023).
3
The retrospective guest house, in the absence of adequate justification to demonstrate vehicle
parking together with associated servicing and deliveries as well as refuse storage commensurate with
the retrospective use, gives rise to conditions prejudicial to the free flow and safety of vehicular traffic
and unsafe pedestrian movements as well as littering of waste in the vicinity, contrary to the National
Planning Policy Framework (2023), Policies T2, T4 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2023), Policies CP24
and CP25 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD45, DMD47 and DMD48 of the Enfield
Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 1 November 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
Exist. Location, Floor and Elevs. Drawing
Prop. Floor and Elevs. Drawing
Highways proforma Supporting Information
Design and Access Statement Supporting Information
Management Plan Supporting Information
Additional Information
The applicant is advised to submit a planning application to enable an assessment of the rear
outbuildings at both properties if they are in use for habitable accommodation. This application should
also include the retrospective single storey rear extension at no. 19 in the proposal description.
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 change of use results in the loss of both properties at nos. 19 and 21 Kendal
Gardens N18 1NF respectively that would be more appropriately occupied as single family dwelling
houses and undermines the need to ensure that a range of housing types are available within the
Borough with particular regard to the need to provide appropriate accommodation for family
occupation. Furthermore, insufficient details have been provided to demonstrate that there is a specific
need for a hotel at this location and no alternative locations are available. The retrospective change of
use is thereby contrary to Policies DMD3, DMD4 and DMD31 of the Development Management
Document (2014), CP5, CP12 and CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010) and H1, H8 and H10 of the
London Plan (2021) as well as the advice contained within the NPPF (2023) and the Enfield Strategic
Housing Market Assessment (2015).
2
The retrospective change of use, by virtue of increase in activity, comings and goings, general
noise and disturbance associated with the retrospective guest house development detracts from the
residential character and amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring residential
properties. This is contrary to Policies CP12 and CP30 of the Core Strategy, Policies DMD4, DMD8,
DMD31, DMD37 and DMD68 of the Development Management Document, Policy D14 of the London
Plan (2021) as well as the objectives of the NPPF (2023).
3
The retrospective guest house, in the absence of adequate justification to demonstrate vehicle
parking together with associated servicing and deliveries as well as refuse storage commensurate with
the retrospective use, gives rise to conditions prejudicial to the free flow and safety of vehicular traffic
and unsafe pedestrian movements as well as littering of waste in the vicinity, contrary to the National
Planning Policy Framework (2023), Policies T2, T4 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2023), Policies CP24
and CP25 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD45, DMD47 and DMD48 of the Enfield
Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 1 November 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
Exist. Location, Floor and Elevs. Drawing
Prop. Floor and Elevs. Drawing
Highways proforma Supporting Information
Design and Access Statement Supporting Information
Management Plan Supporting Information
Additional Information
The applicant is advised to submit a planning application to enable an assessment of the rear
outbuildings at both properties if they are in use for habitable accommodation. This application should
also include the retrospective single storey rear extension at no. 19 in the proposal description.
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
DMD3DMD4DMD31CP5CP12CP30H1H8H10NPPFDMD8DMD37DMD68D14T2T4T6.1CP24CP25DMD45DMD47DMD48
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
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.