Planning appeal decision
26 Coniston Gardens, LONDON, N9 8NB
for a 4.2m rear extension
- Authority
- London Borough of Enfield
- Appeal type
- householder · Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Householder developments
- Inspector
- Plenty B
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposed extension would accommodate flood resilience measures and would be at risk of flooding
What decided it
The absence of sufficient evidence that the extension accommodates the required flood resilience measures and the resulting risk of flooding in a flood zone 2 location.
The private benefit of supporting a growing family was of limited weight and could not outweigh the identified policy conflict regarding flood risk; the neutral factor of complementary character could not overcome the flood risk harm.
Framework references: 167, 168
Plan policies cited: SI 12, SI 13, CP28, CP29, DMD59, DMD60
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®