105, Southbury Road, EN1 1PL

Application Details

Applicant & Agent

Planning Application Dates

Planning Decision

Why it was refused

1. 1.The proposed conversion of the existing Class C3 (dwelling house) to a Class Sui Generis House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) would result in an excessive number and clustering of conversions along this section of the street, thereby harming the established character of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CP5 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD5, DMD6, DMD8, and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
2. 2.The proposed Class Sui Generis HMO, by reason of its scale and intensity of occupation, would require a significantly greater level of ancillary infrastructure, including communal refuse storage and secure cycle parking. Whilst policy-compliant cycle parking and refuse storage could be physically accommodated within the site, the scale and extent of the cycle parking, refuse storage and associated infrastructure required to appropriately serve an 8-person sui generis HMO would result in the front garden becoming dominated by ancillary structures and storage facilities. The resultant loss of the property's domestic appearance and increased visual clutter would materially harm the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding streetscene. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that policy-compliant cycle parking and refuse storage can be provided in a manner that would adequately serve the proposed development without giving rise to this identified character and appearance harm. The development would therefore be contrary to Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policies D3, D4, D5, T5 and T7 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD37 and DMD47 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
3. 3.The applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence, including a robust on-street parking stress survey, to demonstrate that the net increase in parking demand arising from the proposed 8- person HMO can be accommodated without resulting in unacceptable parking stress or adverse impacts on the operation and safety of the surrounding highway network. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies T2 and T6 of the London Plan (2021), and Policies DMD45 and DMD47 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
4. 4.The proposed development would fail to provide satisfactory living accommodation by reason of the restricted headroom and poor quality internal environment within Bedroom 8. The applicant has not demonstrated that the room provides an appropriate amount of usable floorspace having regard to the Nationally Described Space Standard, including the requirement that at least 75% of the Gross Internal Area achieves a floor-to-ceiling height of at least 2.3m. The proposal would therefore result in substandard accommodation contrary to Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), and DMD8 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).
5. 5.The proposed sui generis HMO, by reason of the occupation of the property by eight unrelated individuals sharing communal facilities and external amenity areas, would result in intensified activity, comings and goings, visitor movements and use of external areas that would give rise to unacceptable noise and disturbance to adjoining residential occupiers. The development would therefore be contrary to Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), Policies D14 of the London Plan (2021), CP4 and CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), DMD8 and DMD68 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) and the London Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2016).

From the council's decision notice.

Publicity

Appeal

Additional Information