Six self-contained flats at 95 Trent Gardens, Southgate, London N14

What was proposed

The application proposed replacing the bungalow with a two-storey block containing six flats, roof accommodation, amenity space, cycle parking, refuse storage and landscaping.

“Demolition of the existing bungalow and erection of a two-storey block with 6no. self-contained flats with accommodation in roof space, private and shared amenity space, cycle parking, refuse, and associated landscaping.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The corner site contains a three-bedroom bungalow and garage in a residential area of two-storey homes and nearby flatted blocks.

“The application site is located on the corner of Trent Gardens and Freshfield Drive. The site comprises a 3-bedroom bungalow, with a deep plan form. There is informal parking to the front and a detached pitched roof garage to the rear garden. The garage is accessed at the rear of the site, via an access road, from Freshfield Drive.”

“The bungalow is within an established residential area. Trent Gardens is characterised by two storey terraced and semidetached properties with parking on hard standing to the front. The host property fronts onto Trent Gardens. To the south side, the site is separated from the nearest neighbouring dwelling by an access route to properties. Freshfield Drive which runs perpendicular to the site is characterised by three/four storey flatted blocks.”

Officer report

Earlier planning involvement

An earlier application was granted for an additional storey to six flats, while pre-application advice supported intensification but sought changes to scale, design, privacy and access.

“22/01386/PRA Rear of the site Construction of one additional storey to provide 6 no. self-contained flats to existing blocks of flats, with private amenity spaces and cycle stores Granted…”

“There is scope of intensification of the application site, and the principle of development is acceptable subject to other material planning considerations such as design and character, neighbouring amenity and standard of accommodation. • The site is principally read as part of the Trent Gardens street scene, and any proposal should fit in with the prevailing character and not result in a proposal which is over dominant.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the scheme would add five homes, provide an acceptable design and housing mix, and avoid unacceptable harm to neighbours.

“The proposal makes efficient and policy-compliant use of an under-utilised corner plot within an established residential area. The scheme optimises the site by replacing a single bungalow with six well-designed new homes, supporting local and London-wide housing delivery at a time when the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing supply and the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies.”

“Delivery of new housing and replacement family housing on a sustainable site, contributing five additional dwellings toward Enfield’s housing supply. The borough cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Transport, environmental health, urban design, the police and Thames Water raised no objection, while drainage details were required by condition.

“Metropolitan Police (Secure by Design): No objection. Metropolitan Police has requested a secure by design condition and informative.”

“LBE Environmental Health No objection. Advise that there is unlikely to be any negative environmental impact. No concerns were raised regarding air quality or contaminated land.”

Officer report

Objections received

Fifty-two objections raised concerns about overdevelopment, parking, highway safety, privacy, light, waste access, design, construction disruption and environmental effects.

“- Close to adjoining properties - Development too high - Inadequate parking provision - Loss of light - Loss of parking - Loss of privacy - Strain on existing community facilities - General dislike of proposal - Affect local ecology - Noise nuisance - Overdevelopment…”

“Parking and Highway Safety Loss of existing parking (2–3 spaces) with no replacement. Unrealistic assumptions about car ownership Freshfield Drive and surrounding roads already congested. Breaches Enfield DMD 45 and London Plan Transport Policies.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Representatives of Trent Gardens Management Ltd, a local resident and the ward councillor spoke against the recommendation, followed by the applicant’s planning agent.

Members’ questions and debate

Members questioned parking, land rights, light, design, massing, overlooking, trees and refuse, while officers explained their assessment of each issue.

“In response to Members’ questions relating to parking, officers advised that surveys had been conducted to measure the residential peak and officers had determined there was sufficient capacity for on street parking to meet demand.”

“In response to Members’ queries relating to light, design and massing, officers responded that the property was located to the north and a sunlight/ daylight report had been completed which showed no significant reduction. Pre- application work had taken place with a design officer; the property was a corner site which reflected a transition in design between neighbouring roads and had been considered acceptable.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members rejected a refusal motion based on massing and design by seven votes to four, with no abstentions.

“Cllr Rye proposed a countermotion, seconded by Cllr Chamberlain, that the application be refused, on the basis that the massing and design of the building were out of keeping with the area.”

“This counterproposal, having been put to the vote; Members voted:”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was agreed subject to conditions, with delegated authority for the final wording of those conditions.

“Officers’ original recommendations, having been put to the vote; Members voted:”

“The Director of Planning and Building Control be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions. That the Director of Planning and Building Control be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.”

Minutes