Planning application · Enfield
24/01298/FUL.
346 Baker Street Enfield EN1 3LQ
Full / Other Planning at 346 Baker Street Enfield EN1 3LQ, received 19 Apr 2024 — refused on 5 Jul 2024 (delegated, Samuel Wong).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationEnfield profile →
Refused
Outcome
5 Jul 2024
11 wks
Decision time
3 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
11
Documents
11 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 and conversion of a shop (Class E) into two self contained flats (Class C3). Alternations to the front fenestration.
Reference
24/01298/FUL
Type
Full
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN1 3LQ
Ward
Council
Received
19 Apr 2024
Validated
17 May 2024
Target date
12 Jul 2024
Decision date
5 Jul 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
24/01298/FUL
Type
Full
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
EN1 3LQ
Ward
Council
Received
19 Apr 2024
Validated
17 May 2024
Target date
12 Jul 2024
Decision date
5 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 5 Jul 2024, delegated decision by Samuel Wong — 11 weeks from submission (3 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
19 Apr 2024
Application received
17 May 2024
Application validated
12 Jul 2024
Statutory target date
5 Jul 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Samuel Wong
19 Apr 2024
Application received
17 May 2024
Application validated
12 Jul 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
5 Jul 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Samuel Wong
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed alteration to the front elevation by virtue of its centrally aligned fenestration and
façade design incorporating two front doors, would appear as a visually jarring and incongruous
addition in the streetscene and would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the
existing building and the wider area. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the
London Plan (2021), to Policy CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010), to Policies DMD6, DMD28, DMD37
and DMD38 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014), and to the National Planning
Policy Framework (2023).
2
The proposed development by virtue of its inadequate floor areas, substandard floor-to-ceiling
heights, failure to provide external amenity space, and due to a substandard quality of daylight and
outlook in the lower ground bedroom, would result in poor and substandard quality accommodation
incapable of meeting the reasonable needs of occupiers. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to
Policies D3, D4, D5 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), to Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy
(2010), to Policies DMD5, DMD6, DMD8 and DMD9 of the Enfield Development Management
Document (2014), and to the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).
3
The proposed development, in the absence of an adequate flood risk assessment and
sustainable drainage strategy, fails to demonstrate how proposed measures manage the risk of
flooding and utilise Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) following the drainage hierarchy in
the London Plan, contrary to Policies SI12 and SI13 of the London Plan (2021), to Policies CP21 and
CP28 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and to Policies DMD59, DMD60, DMD61 and DMD62 of the
Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
4
The proposed change of use, by virtue of the absence of robust evidence to support the loss of
a retail unit in the Baker Street Large Local Centre, and by significantly breaking the continuity of the
retail frontage in a local centre, would be detrimental to the vitality of the local centre and would reduce
the provision of retail premises in the designated retail area, limiting the choices of local shoppers, and
adversely impacting upon sustainable economic growth. Given this, the proposal fails to comply with
Policy E9 of the London Plan (2021), with Policies CP17 and CP18 of the Core Strategy (2010), and
with Policy DMD28 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 5 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
samuel.wong@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Location Plan
Block Plan
Design and Access Statement
Highway Safety Impact Form
Energy Strategy Report (Ref: 22-9303) dated May 2024
FEBRUARY24_346BS_01
JANUARY24_346BS_02
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 alteration to the front elevation by virtue of its centrally aligned fenestration and
façade design incorporating two front doors, would appear as a visually jarring and incongruous
addition in the streetscene and would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the
existing building and the wider area. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the
London Plan (2021), to Policy CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010), to Policies DMD6, DMD28, DMD37
and DMD38 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014), and to the National Planning
Policy Framework (2023).
2
The proposed development by virtue of its inadequate floor areas, substandard floor-to-ceiling
heights, failure to provide external amenity space, and due to a substandard quality of daylight and
outlook in the lower ground bedroom, would result in poor and substandard quality accommodation
incapable of meeting the reasonable needs of occupiers. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to
Policies D3, D4, D5 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), to Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy
(2010), to Policies DMD5, DMD6, DMD8 and DMD9 of the Enfield Development Management
Document (2014), and to the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).
3
The proposed development, in the absence of an adequate flood risk assessment and
sustainable drainage strategy, fails to demonstrate how proposed measures manage the risk of
flooding and utilise Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) following the drainage hierarchy in
the London Plan, contrary to Policies SI12 and SI13 of the London Plan (2021), to Policies CP21 and
CP28 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and to Policies DMD59, DMD60, DMD61 and DMD62 of the
Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposed change of use, by virtue of the absence of robust evidence to support the loss of
a retail unit in the Baker Street Large Local Centre, and by significantly breaking the continuity of the
retail frontage in a local centre, would be detrimental to the vitality of the local centre and would reduce
the provision of retail premises in the designated retail area, limiting the choices of local shoppers, and
adversely impacting upon sustainable economic growth. Given this, the proposal fails to comply with
Policy E9 of the London Plan (2021), with Policies CP17 and CP18 of the Core Strategy (2010), and
with Policy DMD28 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
Dated: 5 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
samuel.wong@enfield.gov.uk.
List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice:
Title/Number Version TYPE
Location Plan
Block Plan
Design and Access Statement
Highway Safety Impact Form
Energy Strategy Report (Ref: 22-9303) dated May 2024
FEBRUARY24_346BS_01
JANUARY24_346BS_02
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
D3D4CP30DMD6DMD28DMD37DMD38NPPFD5D6DMD5DMD8DMD9SI12SI13CP21CP28DMD59DMD60DMD61DMD62E9CP17CP18
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.