Planning application · Waltham Forest
230855.
16 Springfield Road, Chingford, London, E4 7DJ
Householder at 16 Springfield Road, Chingford, London, E4 7DJ, received 30 Mar 2023 — refused on 15 Jun 2023 (delegated, Cyrus Wong).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationWaltham Forest profile →
Refused
Outcome
15 Jun 2023
11 wks
Decision time
3 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
6
Documents
6 linked
—
Objections
not captured
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Waltham Forest 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?
Construction of single storey rear extension.
Reference
230855
Type
Householder Planning
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
E4 7DJ
Ward
Council
Received
30 Mar 2023
Validated
20 Apr 2023
Target date
15 Jun 2023
Decision date
15 Jun 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
230855
Type
Householder Planning
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
E4 7DJ
Ward
Council
Received
30 Mar 2023
Validated
20 Apr 2023
Target date
15 Jun 2023
Decision date
15 Jun 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Waltham Forest portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 15 Jun 2023, delegated decision by Cyrus Wong — 11 weeks from submission (3 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
30 Mar 2023
Application received
20 Apr 2023
Application validated
15 Jun 2023
Statutory target date
15 Jun 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Cyrus Wong
30 Mar 2023
Application received
20 Apr 2023
Application validated
15 Jun 2023
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
15 Jun 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Cyrus Wong
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The subject development would compromise the private external amenity of the
application site, to the detriment of its occupiers by afecting the quality and limiting
the useable outdoor amenity space, failing to meet the reasonable needs of the
occupiers. This is contrary to policy CS2 of the Waltham Local Forest Plan - Core
Strategy (2012) and policy DM7 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan – Development
Management Policies (2013).
2
Notwithstanding the above reason, in the absence of a Tree Survey and
Arboricultural Impact Assessment that details the replacement and mitigation
measures of the trees along the site's rear boundary and any other trees located
within the vicinity of the development, a full assessment of the acceptability of the
development and assurance of the protection of local biodiversity cannot be
carried out, and therefore it cannot be confirmed that the development would be in
compliance with ? Policy CS5 of Waltham Forest Local Plan - Core Strategy
(2012) and Policy DM35 of Waltham Forest Local Plan - Development
Management Policies (2013).
1
The subject development would compromise the private external amenity of the
application site, to the detriment of its occupiers by afecting the quality and limiting
the useable outdoor amenity space, failing to meet the reasonable needs of the
occupiers. This is contrary to policy CS2 of the Waltham Local Forest Plan - Core
Strategy (2012) and policy DM7 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan – Development
Management Policies (2013).
2
Notwithstanding the above reason, in the absence of a Tree Survey and
Arboricultural Impact Assessment that details the replacement and mitigation
measures of the trees along the site's rear boundary and any other trees located
within the vicinity of the development, a full assessment of the acceptability of the
development and assurance of the protection of local biodiversity cannot be
carried out, and therefore it cannot be confirmed that the development would be in
compliance with ? Policy CS5 of Waltham Forest Local Plan - Core Strategy
(2012) and Policy DM35 of Waltham Forest Local Plan - Development
Management Policies (2013).
Policies cited
CS2DM7CS5DM35
Public response
Comment counts were not captured for this application.
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.