Five-bedroom detached dwelling at 26 The Glen, Enfield

Earlier permissions and changes

Earlier permissions established residential development, while enforcement investigations identified construction changes requiring retrospective permission to regularise the dwelling as built.

“During the course of construction, amendments have been made to the development without the benefit of planning permission. These include alterations to the footprint of the dwelling, amendments to the fenestration pattern, an increase in the size of the rear dormer and changes to the design of the rear retaining wall and raised rear patio/terrace. As constructed, the dwelling is situated approximately 1.3 metres closer to No. 15 The Glen, than originally approved.”

“In determining those applications, the proposal for a new dwelling was considered acceptable, taking account that this underutilised parcel of land would make an effective use of the site and contribute towards the delivery of additional housing, including the provision of larger family accommodation. The current retrospective application does not seek to revisit the principle of development but rather seeks to regularise amendments made during construction.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Five objections were received; consultees raised no objections or had no comments, with drainage and tree matters addressed through conditions and mitigation.

“Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees 6.2. The table below provides a summary of the statutory and non-statutory consultation process that has been undertaken on this planning application and the number of responses received, together with a summary of the issues that have been raised through that process.”

“Internal Statutory and Non-statutory Consultees Sustainable Drainage No Objection, subject to conditions relating to a verification report demonstrating that the approved suds measure have been fully implemented.”

Officer report

What people objected to

Objections covered unauthorised works, stability, alleged damage, trees, privacy, drainage, character, overdevelopment, technical assessments and the planning and enforcement history.

“Concerns regarding excavation works, land stability, retaining structures and potential impacts on neighbouring properties. Officer Comments - The concern regarding excavation works, land stability and retaining structures are acknowledged. However, these matters are more of a building control matter/ civil matter. This is not deemed to be a material planning consideration.”

“Concerns regarding the planning and enforcement history of the site, including allegations of intentional unauthorised development and requests that this be given weight in the determination of the application Officer Comment - The planning and enforcement history of the site has been carefully considered as part of the assessment.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A deputation spoke against the officers’ recommendation, while the applicant’s agent spoke in favour of the proposal.

Members’ questions and debate

Members questioned the retrospective application, planning breaches, possible intentional unauthorised development and tree impacts before receiving officers’ responses.

“Jeremiah Ayerh, Senior Planning Officer, introduced and highlighted the key aspects of the application. A deputation was received from Rob Bryant, who spoke against officers recommendations. A deputation was received from Jerome Lejeune, agent on behalf of the applicant, in favour of the applicant.”

“Officers therefore considered that the circumstances did not justify refusal of the application on that basis alone. In response to members’ questions and queries regarding the impact of the development on trees, officers advised on the submitted tree survey and the assessment undertaken as part of the application. The proposal having been put to the vote; Members voted: 11 FOR”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted 11 for, none against and one abstention.

“0 AGAINST 1 ABSTENTION So, it was AGREED: 1. That the Director of Planning and Growth be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions. 2. That the Director of Planning and Growth be granted delegated authority to finalise the wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.”

Minutes