Seven family homes at 103A Bourne Hill, Southgate, London N13

What was proposed

The application sought demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings to build seven two-storey four-bedroom homes with parking, cycle storage, refuse facilities and landscaping.

“The application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling, garages and ancillary structures on the site and the comprehensive redevelopment of the land to provide 7 two-storey residential dwellings.”

“The proposal includes associated car parking spaces, secure cycle parking, and refuse and recycling storage for each dwelling, integrated within the site layout to ensure functionality whilst minimising visual impact. Access, turning space and circulation within the site are designed to allow vehicles to enter and leave in a forward gear.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a 2,409-square-metre triangular backland plot, accessed through an existing road from Bourne Hill and surrounded mainly by two-storey homes and gardens.

“The application site comprises a backland parcel of approximately 2,409 sqm to the rear of 103A Bourne Hill, London N13 4BE, within the London Borough of Enfield. The site is irregular and broadly triangular in shape and is currently occupied by a single residential dwelling, two detached garages, and two shipping containers used for ancillary storage purposes.”

“The site does not present a direct frontage to the public highway and is accessed from Bourne Hill via the established access serving No.103A, comprising a 45 metre long access road varying between 3.6m and 4.1m in width. Owing to its backland nature, the site is visually contained and largely screened from the…”

Officer report

Planning history

The site had no recent planning history, but historic permissions included a house and garage and several permissions for garages.

“The site has no recent planning history. However, there are several historic planning permissions associated with this site:”

“SOUTHGATE_5036 House & Garage Granted with conditions (approximately 1965) TP/66/0869 Two Dwellings Refused (1966) TP/67/0814 Garages Granted with conditions (1967) TP/72/0352 Garages Granted with conditions (1972)”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the scheme would provide six additional homes, suitable family housing and acceptable residential, design, transport and environmental outcomes subject to conditions.

“The principle of residential redevelopment is acceptable and would deliver a net gain of six dwellings and additional family housing in a borough with an identified housing shortfall. The scheme has been assessed against key material considerations, including residential quality, design, neighbouring amenity, transport and servicing, biodiversity and trees, sustainability, flood risk and drainage, and environmental matters.”

“The proposed dwellings meet or exceed internal space standards and provide generous private gardens and shared external space. Technical evidence confirms no unacceptable impacts on neighbouring daylight and sunlight, and separation distances together with the two-storey scale and layout limit overlooking, noise and disturbance.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while 45 objections cited design, housing, amenity, transport, construction, ecology, drainage and energy concerns.

“LBE Transport Planning: No objection subject to conditions for cycle parking, EV parking, refuse storage, CMP, surface and signage, junction of access road and highway Officer’s comment: Recommended conditions have been included in the list of conditions in the Recommendation section of this report.”

“Refer to the ‘Transport, Access, Parking and Servicing’ section of the report. Construction Impacts Concerns about air quality, dust, and health impacts during construction Any construction impacts will be mitigated by the planning conditions, which secure the submission of further details prior to commencement of the development and mitigation measures.”

Officer report

Public views

Ten standardised support forms welcomed the provision of much-needed housing, while objections raised concerns about overdevelopment, privacy, traffic, trees, biodiversity and flooding.

“As a result of the public consultation, 45 objections to the development have been received to date. In addition, the applicant has submitted 10 standardised forms completed by local residents in support of the proposal, citing the benefit of providing much-needed housing within the borough.”

“There is no policy requirement for a non- major development (under 10 units) to provide affordable housing. The proposed houses will be for market sale. Refer to the ‘Housing Need and Mix’ section of the report. Impact on Neighbours (Amenity, Privacy, Daylight)”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident and the Southgate ward councillor spoke against the recommendation, followed by the planning agent speaking for the applicant.

Members’ discussion

Members questioned access, fire vehicles, parking, pedestrians, design, terminology, privacy, lighting and tree removal before considering a site visit.

“In response to Members’ questions and comments regarding access, officers responded that the access was too narrow for a fire engine to enter, so a dry riser would be conditioned. Tracking had shown refuse and ambulance vehicles could access and turn at the site. Vehicles entering the site would have right of way, there would be signage to reflect this and the number of expected trips was low, so this was not anticipated to cause an issue.”

“In response to Members’ queries relating to design, officers advised that the application had been designed in consultation with a design officer and the proposals were felt to be appropriate and not out of keeping with the character of the area. It was confirmed that the application had not been and was not required to go to a design review panel, as this was for larger or complex schemes.”

Minutes

The votes

Members rejected deferral for a site visit by 7 votes to 4, then supported the original recommendation by 7 votes to 4.

“Cllr Rye proposed a countermotion, seconded by Cllr Chamberlain, that the application be deferred for a site visit, so that Members could assess the access.”

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

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted through delegated authority, subject to conditions, with authority also given to finalise their wording.

“That the Director of Planning and Growth be granted delegated authority to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions. 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