12 flats at 964 Hertford Road, Waltham Cross

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing a five-bedroom house and building two three-storey blocks containing 12 flats, four parking spaces and associated works.

“Site and Surroundings 4.1. The application site comprises a two-storey, five-bedroom detached house located on the corner of Hertford Road and Tollgate Road, within a predominantly residential area. The property is currently occupied as a single-family dwelling. The site is relatively large, measuring approximately 840sqm, and includes a generously sized garden of around 420sqm, which is notably larger than those of surrounding properties.”

“North East Enfield Area Action Plan • Epping Forest SAC Zone of Influence 5. Proposal 5.1. In summary, the proposal seeks: • Demolition of the existing 5-bedroom two storey house • Erection of two blocks of flats, totaling 12 residential units. The proposed 12 units would comprise three 2-bedroom units and nine 3-bedroom units • Installation of four parking spaces including one disabled parking space, cycle parking facilities and associated works 5.2.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was a large corner property in a mainly residential area, with access from Hertford Road and Tollgate Road and moderate public transport access.

“Hertford Road is a classified road A1010 and Tollgate Road is a non-classified road and not within a controlled parking zone (CPZ). There is a metal gate at the end of Tollgate Road restricting vehicular access to Hertford Road. The application site is located at the Waltham Cross end of the Hertford Road near the M25. The site has a PTAL of 3, which indicates a moderate level of access to public transport.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the housing, design, amenity, transport, drainage, environmental health, sustainability and safety matters were considered acceptable subject to obligations and conditions.

“Conclusion 12.1. The proposed development seeks to replace a single dwelling with two blocks of flats comprising 12 residential units, contributing to the borough’s much needed housing supply in a predominantly residential area. The principle of residential intensification on this site is acceptable and aligns with the Council’s strategic objectives.”

“On balance, and subject to conditions and obligations secured through a Section 106 agreement, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with relevant planning policies and is recommended for approval.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Statutory consultees raised no objections, while one public response supported the scheme and 13 objected, citing concerns including parking, privacy, height and overdevelopment.

“External Statutory and Non-statutory Consultees London Fire Brigade No objection Metropolitan Police No objection, subject to conditions Thames Water No objection Internal Statutory and Non-statutory Consultees Environmental Health No objection, subject to conditions Strategic Transport No objection, subject to conditions Sustainable Drainage No objection Sustainability No objection, subject to conditions and carbon offset contribution Urban Design No objection…”

“- Affect local ecology - Crime - Development too high - General dislike of proposal - Inadequate access - Inadequate parking provision - Increase of pollution - Loss of light - Loss of parking - Loss of privacy - More open space needed on development - Noise nuisance - Not enough info given on application - Out of keeping with character of area - Overdevelopment - Refuse management - Strain on existing community facilities Officer Comment: Due consideration has been given to…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the recommendation, and the agent representing the application spoke in response.

Members’ questions

Members questioned parking, affordable housing, architectural and heritage value, green spaces, child play provision and Section 106 contributions.

“In response to Members questions about affordable housing, Officers set out how the affordable housing financial viability assessments operated, and clarified that a mid-stage review was not appropriate for this project as that was only utilised for large, multi-staged applications.”

“Members asked a range of questions about architectural and heritage value, green spaces, and child’s play provision. Officers advised that they had consulted appropriately with the Council’s Heritage Officer; noted that the area was a mixed urban and suburban area and that the application was compliant with the Urban Greening Policy in the London Plan; and advised that though the development did not need to meet child play area provision policy requirements due to its size,…”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members voted five for, two against and two abstentions.

“The proposal having been put to the vote; Members voted:”

Minutes

The decision

The committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to completing a Section 106 agreement, conditions and delegated authority to finalise them.

“That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the obligations as set out in the report, the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.”

“That the Head of Planning and Building Control be granted delegated authority to finalise the wording of the Section 106 Agreement and the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.”

Minutes