The Planning Committee of Enfield Council met on Tuesday 13 October 2026, where members refused a planning application for a detached dwelling on land rear of 3-7 Seaforth Gardens and 35 Broad Walk, London N21 3BT. The committee also noted the dates of future meetings.

Refusal of Planning Application at Seaforth Gardens

The Planning Committee refused planning permission for the construction of a detached dwelling, including a garage, indoor gym with an outdoor swimming pool, garaging, driveway, and associated works, on land rear of 3-7 Seaforth Gardens and 35 Broad Walk, London N21 3BT¹. The decision was made by a vote of 1 for, 7 against, with 3 abstentions. The refusal was based on the grounds that the access to the site was deemed unsafe due to its narrowness, being the only access, and the potential for it to be blocked or obstructed in an emergency. This echoed concerns raised in a previous appeal decision for a similar application on the site.

During the discussion, Senior Planning Officer Michael Kotoh-Mortty highlighted that the current application was smaller in scale than a previous one that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. He explained that the previous refusal was not on the principle of residential development but due to the design and scale of the proposed three large dwellings. The current proposal for one dwelling with a flat roof was considered by officers to have acceptably overcome previous reasons for refusal, not causing significant harm to neighbouring amenity.

However, councillors expressed significant concerns regarding the access. Councillor Maria Alexandrou, the Ward Councillor for Winchmore Hill, spoke against the officers' recommendation to grant permission. Representatives for residents also spoke against the proposal. Concerns were raised about the ability of emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks, to access the site quickly and safely, especially if the access road were blocked. Officers responded by stating that the proposed access width met minimum requirements and that tracking had shown a fire truck could manoeuvre on site. They also noted that the previous appeal decision had not raised fire access as an issue, but rather highway safety concerns related to conflicting vehicle movements, which had been addressed by reducing the number of dwellings.

Further discussions covered refuse collection arrangements, with officers explaining that the proposed location met policy requirements. Biodiversity mitigations, including tree planting, were also discussed and noted to be achievable through conditions.

Ultimately, the Chair proposed refusal on the grounds of unsafe access, and the committee agreed. Officers were delegated to formulate the final wording of the refusal reason in consultation with the Chair.

Dates of Future Meetings

Members noted the schedule for upcoming Planning Committee meetings. The meeting provisionally scheduled for 22 October 2026 would proceed, but commence at 7:30 pm. The provisional meeting on 3 November 2026 would not be used.