Development Intent
Planning AtlasEnfieldBowesApplication
Planning Application

20/01013/FUL

178 North Circular Road London N13 6BN

Full / Other PlanningBowes wardRivers Buffer: Name: Code: RIVBUF1
Submission
24 Mar 2020
Target
20 May 2020
Decision
19 Nov 2021
Outcome
Refused
Delegated decisionRefused
19 Nov 2021
Decided by Alex Johnson under delegated powers
Loading map…
Scheme description

Conversion of outbuilding into a self-contained residential unit

Why it was refused
Reason 1

The outbuilding by reason of its internal layout and independent means of access is capable of being used as a separate unit of residential accommodation within the curtilage of the existing property, resulting in a cramped and over intensive use of the site, and a pattern and form of development out of keeping and character with its surroundings, contrary to Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021); Policy 30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010); Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD12, and 37 of the Development Management Document (2014).

Reason 2

The proposed development by reason of its single aspect nature and poor light; outlook and ventilation to a habitable room and its failure to demonstrate adequate outdoor amenity space provision would result in a contrived, substandard and inappropriate form of accommodation for future occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021); Policies CP4 and CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD6 DMD8 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document (2014) and the London Plan Housing SPG.

Reason 3

The proposal by reason of its siting and the increased activity associated with a separate unit would by reason of the increased noise, disturbance and activity be harmful to the amenities enjoyed by the residents of the neighbouring properties and would result in mutual loss of privacy to the future occupiers of the outbuilding and No.178 North Circular Road, contrary to Policies D6 and D14 of the London Plan (2021); Core Policies 30 and 32 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD8, DMD 12, and 37 of the Development Management Document (2014).

Reason 4

The proposed development makes no provision for off-street parking and the applicant has failed to provide sufficient information demonstrate that the proposal would not give rise to an unacceptable increase in demand for on-street parking, which would have a negative impact on highway safety and the free flow of traffic contrary to Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy 24 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policy 45 of the Development Management Document (2014).

Reason 5

The proposed development, in the absence of adequate cycle storage, fails to provide a secure, convenient and high-quality facility for all types of bicycles, contrary to Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021); Policy CP25 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010); Policies DMD45, DMD47 and DMD48 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).

Reason 6

The proposed development, in the absence of adequate waste storage, fails to provide a convenient and accessible facility for managing waste generated by the development, contrary to Policies SI 7 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP25 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD45, DMD47 and DMD48 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) and the Enfield Waste and Recycling Storage Planning Guidance (2020).

Reason 7

The proposed development, in the absence of an adequate energy statement, fails to demonstrate how the proposal minimises energy-related CO2 emissions and SI 4 of the London Plan (2021); Policy CP20 of the Enfield Core Strategy 2010, Policies DMD50, DMD51 and DMD53 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).

Reason 8

The proposed development, in the absence of an adequate sustainable drainage strategy, 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, contrary to Policies SI 12 and SI13 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP28 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD59, DMD60, DMD61 and DMD62 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014). Dated: 19 November 2021 Authorised on behalf of: Mr A Higham Head of Development Management Development Management, London Borough Enfield, PO Box 53, Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, Middlesex, EN1 3XE If you have any questions about this decision, please contact the planning officer alex.johnson@enfield.gov.uk. List of plans and documents referred to in this Notice: Title/Number Version TYPE Existing and Proposed Site Layout Drawing Existing and Proposed Plans and Elevations Drawing Location Plan Drawing Additional Information Rights of Applicants Aggrieved by Decision of Local Planning Authority

Policies cited
D4
D6
Enfield Core Strategy 30
Development Management Document 37
CP4
CP30
DMD8
DMD37
D14
Enfield Core Strategy 32
T6
Enfield Core Strategy 24
Development Management Document 45
CP25
DMD45
DMD47
DMD48
SI7
SI4
CP20
DMD50
DMD51
DMD53
SI12
SI13
CP28
DMD59
DMD60
DMD61
DMD62
Parties
Applicant
Mr A Yilmaz
Ward
Bowes
Timeline
24 Mar 2020
Application submitted
25 Mar 2020
Application validated
19 Nov 2021
Delegated decision: Refused
Supporting documents · 8
Decision Notice19 Nov 2021View ↗
REPORT19 Nov 2021View ↗
Application Form31 Mar 2020View ↗
Site location plan24 Mar 2020View ↗
Existing and proposed site laypout24 Mar 2020View ↗
Existing and Proposed Layout and Elevations24 Mar 2020View ↗
cil24 Mar 2020View ↗
cil24 Mar 2020View ↗
View Application Page ↗
Data from the Enfield planning register.
Summary
Reference
20/01013/FUL
Ward
Type
Full
Applicant
Mr A Yilmaz
Submitted
24 Mar 2020
Decision date
19 Nov 2021
Council
Decision
Refused
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
How long, really
86
wks · this application
Submission → decision · 78 wks over the 8-week target
Public response
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0