3B.11 Improving skills and employment opportunities for Londoners 3C.2, 3 Transport capacity/Sustainable transport 3C.17, 19 Tackling congestion / Local Transport public realm enhancements 3C.20, 21,22 Improving conditions for buses, walking, cycling 3C.23 Parking Strategy 3D.2,7 Town centre Development/ Visitor accommodation and facilities 4A.1 Tackling Climate Change 4A.3, 4,5 Sustainable Design, energy assessment, heating and cooling 4A.6, 7 Decentralised Energy/ Renewable energy 4A.14, 18,19 Sustainable Drainage/ Water & sewerage/Air Quality 4B. 1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.2.3, 5 Design/ Quality of the public realm/Inclusive environment 4B.6, 8 Safety & security /Respect local context

Unitary Development Plan

(I) GD1, 2 Regard to surroundings, Improve environment, (II) GD1, 3 Developments appropriately located/character and appearance (II) H8 Privacy (II) GD6, 8 Traffic Generation/servicing (II) T13, 14,15,16,Transportation Related policies (II) T19, 20 Cycling policies (II) T23 Improve road & other accesses within Industrial areas (II) E1 Local Labour Supply situation & supply of industrial and floorspace (II) E2 B1, B2 and B8 in Primary Industrial areas (II) E3 Office development in Cambridge Road Primary Industrial Area. (II) E4 Promote the development of small office and industrial units (II) E11 Assess proposals for office development (II) E13 Improvement measures for Uses in B1, B2, B8 uses (I) AR2 Hotels located in acceptable and accessible locations (II) AR7 To encourage the development of hotels in appropriate locations (I) EN1, 6 Enhance quality of borough, minimise environmental impact (II) EN22, 30 Energy Conservation/ Air, Water & noise pollution (II) GD10 Development satisfactorily integrated

Local Development Framework- Core Strategy Preferred Options

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the Council to replace the UDP with a Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF Core Strategy will set out the spatial vision and strategic objectives for the Borough. The Core Strategy is at an early stage in its adoption process. As this continues the weight given to it will grow and the relevant objectives are reported to demonstrate the degree to which proposals are consistent with emerging policy.

SO 3, 7 Enhance environmental quality/balanced communities SO11, 12 Safer and stronger communities/ Maximise economic potential SO13, 16, 17 Economic activity/ local distinctiveness/ Safeguard communities

Other Material Considerations

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG4 Industrial, commercial development and small firms PPS6, 12 Planning for Town Centres/ Local Development Frameworks PPG13 Transportation PPS22, 23,24,25 Energy/ Pollution/Noise/Flood Risk

Analysis

Principle of Uses

The site falls within the Great Cambridge Road Primary Industrial Area and is also designated part of a Strategic Industrial Location by the London Plan. As a result, the provision of replacement industrial premises falling within the B1©, B2 and B8 use class is acceptable in policy terms. The car dealership and hotel doe not fall within these classifications and therefore, represent departures requiring justification. This justification and the overall scheme will then be subject to consideration by GOL and GLA before a decision can be issued.

Car Dealership

Car dealerships because of their retail character are not normally appropriate for industrial areas. However, the inclusion of a 16 ancillary workshop bays, MOT Station, as well a car valet servicing constitutes a significant element of skilled employment opportunity and provides a more acceptable overall use having regard to the prevailing industrial character. In addition, 99 jobs would be created, 50 of which would be in the workshop element. To retain this important element of the overall use, and render the car dealership element acceptable, a condition is imposed to ensure the workshop / MOT element is retained.

Within the Primary Industrial Area, it is also noted that a BMW car showroom to the north of Lincoln Road was granted planning permission

Hotel

There is an acknowledged need for hotel accommodation to serve the Borough’s business community. This is supported by research which concludes a qualitative need for additional hotel accommodation in Enfield. Considering the price sensitive nature of the local corporate market and lack of limited –service hotels of a comparable quality to that proposed at Lumina Park in Enfield, the proposed hotel is ideally suited to fill an apparent gap for a good quality hotel in Enfield”. It is considered therefore that a hotel with conference facilities in this location would be well placed to serve the needs of existing businesses as well as making the area more attractive to potential businesses.

In response to the GLA concerns additional justification to justify the loss of the Strategic Industrial Land has been provided. A review of Enfield’s Employment Land Study produced by Halcrow which assess the current usage and future need for employment land within the Borough and is the most up to date employment land study relating to the Borough, concludes that the hotel element of the scheme would result in the loss of 0.13% of the total supply of employment land in Enfield and 4% of the Great Cambridge Road cluster. In addition, a sequential test has also been provided to confirm that there are no other more centrally located sites in which the hotel element of the scheme can be located. The test concludes that there are no sequentially preferable sites within or on the edge of the centres of Enfield Town, Upper Edmonton, Edmonton Green, Palmers Green or Southgate Circus, which would meet the requirements of the proposal.

It is considered that the small loss of the strategic employment land resulting from the hotel element, together with the overall benefit of the redevelopment of the site which is part of a wider employment led proposal justifies an exception in this instance, having regard to Policy 3B.4 of the London Plan. Industrial units with ancillary trade counter and the self-storage unit

In general the provision of a range of industrial units is welcomed. However, 11 of the 20 units would incorporate an ancillary trade counter element. To ensure that the trade counter element proposed in 12 of the 20 units remains ancillary, a condition is recommended which will specify maximum floor area and prevent general public access. Subject to this restriction, the size of the ancillary trade counters in relation to the overall total floor sizes is considered acceptable and not likely to prejudice the overall function and character of the development.

Layout

It is considered that the various combinations of building heights, design of buildings and landscaping along the Great Cambridge Road frontage would create a frontage of significant visual interest, making a positive contribution to the street scene. The design of the Lincoln road frontage is also considered acceptable in street scene terms as is the siting and layout of the other Industrial Units to the rear of the site.

A number of issues have been raised by the GLA regarding the (i) rationale for the arrangement of the internal access road at the northern end of the site (ii) hotel parking to be redesigned to include undercroft parking (iii) and the provision of managed access points on the Great Cambridge Road.

Further justification for the rational for the arrangement of the internal access road at the northern end of the site with its dogleg design has been provided and has now been accepted by the GLA. The applicants also looked at the issue of undercroft parking for the hotel to maximise the development potential of the site to establish what potential for further development was created. However, the change would not reveal additional developable space or facilitate the straightening of the access road. The scheme without the undercroft parking is therefore considered acceptable

The Great Cambridge Road frontage has been improved by the introduction of two managed pedestrian/cycle access points as well as the introduction of a pedestrian access on the Lincoln Road to make the site accessible from all locations. The accesses would be controlled by way of a gate, which can be locked after business hours. The introduction of managed access points on the Great Cambridge Road is considered to satisfactorily address this issue.

Design and Appearance

(a) Car dealership

The building is two storey with a decked car parking area between the dealership and Unit 1. The maximum height of the building with the deck parking is 8.8m.The mass of the building is broken into two sections, the showroom and the workshop facility. The showroom has been designed as a light airy glass cube contrasting with the solid form of the workshop .The architectural approach results in an attractive building frontage facing the Great Cambridge Road in particular the glass element helps to add visual interest to the street scene.

(b) Self-Storage Unit

The L shaped 5-storey self-storage unit, is located on the south west of the site fronting Great Cambridge Road and Progress Way and would have a maximum height of 15.2m. It is not

considered that a five-storey building would look out of place architecturally on this corner and is positive in townscape terms. The elevations would generally consist of brick at ground floor level with composite cladding panels or a profiled vertical cladding system above and a profiled horizontal cladding system at a higher level. The various mixed palette of materials proposed for the building would also add visual interest in terms of breaking up its appearance.

(c) Hotel

The design of the 5-storey hotel which would be “L” shaped in form situated on the corner of the Great Cambridge Road/ Lincoln Road, is considered acceptable in providing a positive architectural statement on this prominent corner location .On the opposite side of the Great Cambridge Road is a new 5/6 storey residential development and therefore the scale and height of the hotel is considered acceptable in its general street scene context. The various palettes of materials proposed for the hotel are appropriate in providing a satisfactory visual appearance to the building. The height of the hotel at its highest point is 18m.

There would be an intervening distance of approximately 38m between the 5-storey hotel and the five storey residential development on the opposite side of the Great Cambridge road, which is considered sufficient separation distance so as to protect privacy.

(d) Industrial Units 1-20

The contemporary design approach is considered to provide a high quality specification and appearance to the units; architectural feature cladding would also been used on the entrance areas to add visual interest. The positioning of the office elements at the front at first floor level would also increase surveillance to the parking areas and entrances of the estate.

It is considered that design of the hotel, car showroom, self-store and industrial units has achieve a high quality standard having regard to London Plan and UDP policy.

Parking/ Access/ Traffic Generation

The site has a low public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 1b to 2 and a total of 235 car paring spaces (including 28 disabled spaces) are proposed. Concerns were expressed by the GLA regarding the over provision of parking which have now been addressed

There would be a one-way flow through the development will vehicles entering from Lincoln Road and exiting via Progress Way. These arrangements together with the internal servicing and manoeuvring space for the industrial units and other elements of the scheme are satisfactory. With regards cycle parking provision a total of 194-cycle spaces are proposed which fully meets applicable cycle standards. A condition securing the secured, covered, accessible and lockable cycle facilities will be imposed.

Two managed pedestrian/cycle access points would be included on the Great Cambridge Road frontage and one on the Lincoln Road frontage to make the site more permeable from all locations.

An area of land at the northwest corner of the site Lincoln Road/ A10 frontage of the site would be transferred to TfL (as part of a section 278 Agreement) to accomododate possible junction alterations. In addition provision would also be made for an extension to the cycle track adjacent

the Great Cambridge Road frontage, as well as improvements to the Progress Way footway. Right turn markings would be required on Lincoln Way, the existing access along Lincoln Road would also need closing, as well as the provision of waiting restrictions which would be require 278 agreement prior to the commencement of development.

A travel plan condition is also to be imposed which shall follow the current travel plan guidance issued by TfL so as to improve the over all sustainability of the site. A delivery and service vehicle management plan covering users of the site is also proposed.

Sustainability Issues

An energy assessment has been submitted together with additional information in line with the Mayors energy hierarchy requirements .In order to provide reductions in energy consumption and associated carbon emissions the following are proposed.

Passive measures to reduce energy consumption including improved insulation air tightness and provision for natural daylight and ventilation.

Use of energy efficient lighting, plant and equipment to reduce energy demand.

A central combined Heat & Power (CHP) unit to generate a proportion of the site-heating requirement using renewable energy.

A central wood pellet fuelled Biomass Boiler to generate a proportion of the site-heating requirement using renewable energy.

A district heating system to distribute the heat from the central CHP and boiler plant to individual buildings

Solar Thermal panels to generate a proportion of the heating requirement for domestic hot water for the Employment Units, car dealership and hotel, using renewable energy.

Photo Voltaic panels to generate a proportion of the electrical power requirement for the self storage unit, using renewable energy

Ground source Heat pumps to generate a proportion of the heating and cooling requirement for the Car dealership, using renewable energy.

Having regard to these measures, the scheme would deliver a carbon emission reduction of 20.2% compared to current Building Regulations and a further reduction of approximately 19.8% to renewable. This equates to a total site wide carbon emission reduction of 36%. It is considered that the proposals therefore have appropriate regard to London Plan policies 4A.4 to 4A.11.

It is considered that the proposed sustainability measures undertaken in the sustainability strategy has appropriate regard to the Mayor’s policies and the Breeam assessment undertaken concludes that the development is capable of achieving at least a” very good” rating.

Air Quality

The site is located within a designated as an Air Quality Management Area. Consequently, the conclusions of the necessary air quality assessment and accepted by Environmental Health are that the development including biomass boiler does not appear to represent a significant impact on local air quality. A condition regarding mitigation of particulates is recommended. The assessment recognises that construction activity is the most potentially significant source of emissions and thus appropriate mitigation measures for control of dust and emissions during construction are proposed. On this basis, residual air quality effects are deemed negligible. A Construction Environmental Management Plan is also proposed and will be the subject of a condition.

The applicants have also provided the additional information required by GLA regarding an assessment of the impact of existing pollutants on future occupants. Subject to an appropriate condition regarding ventilation of the hotel this is considered to address the issue satisfactorily.

Accessibility

The GLA sought further information regarding lift access to the upper floors of the industrial units and car dealership as well as wheel chair accessibility for the hotel. Additional plans showing lift access to the upper floors of all the industrial units and car showroom have been provided and a condition is proposed to ensure its provision, which would address this issue.

With regards the provision of wheel chair accessible rooms for the Hotel, the applicants have confirmed that the hotel would meet the national accessible accommodation standards (NAAS) which is operated by “ Visit Britain “ which aims to provide good standards of accessibility. In addition the proposal would also comply with building regulations and DDA standards. In the light of the above it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in this regard

Landscaping

A detailed overall landscaping scheme has been provided for the development including along the Great Cambridge Road/ Lincoln Road frontage, which would satisfactorily integrate the development in the street scene.

Conclusion

Taking account of the relevant Government Policy Guidance, The London Plan and Unitary Development Plan Policies and subject to the referral of the application to the GLA and Government Office for London and subject to the completion of a 106 agreement planning permission is recommended for approval for the following reasons:

1. The 20 industrial units (B1/B2/B8) some with ancillary trade counter and self-storage unit (B8) subject to appropriate conditions accord with policies (II) E2, (II) E1, (II) E4, (II) and GD1 of the UDP and policies 2A.10, 3B.1 and 3B.4 of the London Plan.

2. The car showroom with 16 ancillary workshops and MOT station subject to a condition ensuring they remain an integral part of the car dealership, together with the level of job creation is considered acceptable within the wider redevelopment of the site having regard to Policy (II) E2 of the UDP and policies 2A.10, 3B.1 and 3B.4 of the London Plan.

3. The proposed hotel element of the scheme constitutes a small loss of the total supply of Employment Land in Enfield and together with the satisfactory completion of the sequential test PPS6 and the overall benefit of the redevelopment of the site as part of a wider employment led proposal, the benefits are sufficient to justify an exception in this r instance having regard to policies 2A.10, 3B.1 , 3B.4 and 3D.2 of the London Plan and policies (II) E2,(I) AR2 and (II) AR7 of the UDP.

4. The layout of the development, together with its siting, scale, design, storey heights of buildings, use of appropriate materials, landscaping as well as accessing arrangements would result in a development that would satisfactorily integrate into the street scene of the Great Cambridge Road/ Lincoln Road frontages and industrial surroundings having regard to Policies (I) GD1, (I) GD2 and (II) GD3 of the Unitary Development Plan as well as having regard to London Plan Policies 2A.1, 4B.1, 4B.5, 4B.6 and 4B.8 and PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development .

5. The proposal subject to appropriate mitigation measures would not adversely impact on Air Quality having regard to London Plan Policy 4A.19 and policy (II) EN30 of the Unitary Development Plan.

6. The proposal would improve employment opportunities in the Borough having regard to London Plan Policies 3B.1 and 3B.11.

7. The Sustainability Strategy and Energy Strategy, together with the additional information provided would contribute to making a positive contribution to promoting Sustainable Development in accordance with National Policies PPS1, PPS22 as well as having regard to London Plan Policies 2A.1, 4A.1, 4A.3, 4A.4, 4A.5, 4A.6 and 4A.7.

8.The proposed access arrangements (both vehicular and pedestrian), servicing, parking and cycle provision levels together with a travel plan and other transport measures would be unlikely to give rise to conditions prejudicial to the safety of traffic and pedestrians using the surrounding roads including Lincoln Road/ Great Cambridge Road as well as surrounding Industrial units having regard to PPG13 (Transport), London Plan Policies 3C.23, 3C.22, 3C.21,3C.19. 3C.2 and Unitary Development Plan Policies (II) GD6, (II) GD8, (II) T13, 14,15,16, and (II) T23.

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved.London Borough of Enfield.License No LA086363, 2003

Scale 1/5000 Date 6/10/2008

TP/08/1402

Centre = 530739 E 199674 N

Application Number: TP/08/1402 Ward: Chase Date of Registration: 1st September 2008

Contact: Sharon Davidson 3841

Location: CREWS HILL GOLF CLUB, CATTLEGATE ROAD, ENFIELD, EN2 8AZ

Proposal: Extension to first floor roof terrace to rear of building.

Applicant Name & Address:

Crews Hill Golf Club CREWS HILL GOLF CLUB CATTLEGATE ROAD ENFIELDEN2 8AZ

Agent Name & Address:

Mr Barry Robinson, Woodbar Ltd COMMERCIAL PREMISES,ALEXANDRA ROAD INDUSTRIAL ESTA ALEXANDRA ROAD ENFIELDEN3 7EH

Recommendation: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. C08 Materials to Match

2. C51A Time Limited Permission

Site and Surroundings

The application site comprises the Crews Hill Golf Club House on the south side of Cattlegate Road, within the Green Belt and Area of Special Character.

Amplification of Proposal

This application proposes the extension of the existing first floor level viewing terrace on the rear elevation of the building. The terrace would be extended by 3.65m beyond the existing terrace, be supported by new columns and enclosed with 1.1m high balustrading.

Relevant Planning Decisions

None

Consultations

Public

Letters have been sent to the occupiers of nine nearby properties. No responses have been received.

Internal & External

None

Relevant Policy

London Plan

3D.9 Green Belt

Unitary Development Plan

(II)G1 To resist inappropriate development in the Green Belt (II)G5 Landscape character (II)G6 Areas of Special Character (II)G11 Design criteria for new buildings in the Green Belt (II)H8 Privacy and overlooking

Other Policy Considerations

PPG2 Green Belts

Analysis

The Club House supports the open recreational use of this site and therefore a modest extension to the building as proposed would not constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The extension of the terrace is designed to reflect the existing building and will have no impact on the local landscape character. The building is sited a considerable distance away from any residential boundaries and therefore the proposed terrace extension will not give rise to any overlooking or loss of privacy. It is recommended that planning permission be granted.

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved.London Borough of Enfield.License No LA086363, 2003

Scale 1/1250 Date 8/10/2008

TP/08/1436

Centre = 536022 E 195486 N

Application Number: TP/08/1436 Ward: Ponders End Date of Registration: 2nd August 2008

Contact: Sharon Davidson 3841

Location: Former PUBLIC HOUSE, 173, SOUTH STREET, ENFIELD, EN3 4PZ

Proposal: Redevelopment of site by the erection of 71 self-contained affordable housing units and 237 sq.m. of commercial floorspace between two blocks, Block A to form part 5, part 8, part 9-storeys comprising commercial to ground floor with 8 x 1-bed and 36 x 2-bed residential units above, and Block B to form part 4, part 5-storeys comprising 3 x 1-bed, 5 x 2-bed, 14 x 3-bed and 5 x 4-bed residential units, together with roof terrace to Block B, balconies and rear terraces, children's play area, cycle and car parking and access via Woodall Road.

Applicant Name & Address:

Longnor Properties/Paradigm Housing Grp 24, London Road West AmershamBucksHP7 0EZ

Agent Name & Address:

Kuldip Malhotra, KKM Architects 81, Maygrove Road NW6 2EG

Recommendation: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal, having regard to the density of development, size, siting, scale, bulk and mass of the buildings and the lack of amenity space to provide a setting, would result in a dominant, overbearing and cramped form of development detrimental to the amenities of the area. In this respect the development would be contrary to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)GD3 and (II)H9 of the Unitary Development Plan and London Plan policies 3A.3, 3A.6, 3D.13, 4B.1 and 4B.8.

2. The proposal, having regard to the density of development and quality and quantity of amenity space would represent an overdevelopment of the site and a poor standard of accommodation for the benefit of existing residents. In this respect the development would be contrary to Policies (II)GD3 and (II)H9 of the Unitary Development Plan and London Plan policies 3A.6, 3D.13 and 4B.1.

3. The proposed development fails to provide a mix and size of units to meet strategic and local housing need and in this respect is contrary to Policy (II)H6 of the Unitary Development Plan and London Plan policies 3A.5

4. The proposed development fails to provide a mix of affordable housing in accordance London Plan policy 3A.9 and no evidence has been provided to justify a departure from this policy.

5. The development fails to provide adequate vehicular and pedestrian access and would therefore adversely affect highway safety contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy (II) GD8 and London Plan Policy 3C.21.

6. The level of parking provision, together with the design and cramped nature of the car parking arrangements would be likely to give rise to additional on-street parking that would adversely affect highway safety contrary to Unitary Development Plan policy (II) GD6.

Site and Surroundings

The application site comprises the site formerly occupied by The Railway Public House on the south side of South Street. It is bounded by the railway line to the east, Woodall Road to the south, a residential block of flats and grounds to the west (Silver Birch Court). Opposite the site is Kestrel House, a high rise block of flats. Ponders End Railway Station also lies immediately to the north.

Amplification of Proposal

This application proposes the redevelopment of the site by the erection of 71 self-contained affordable housing units and 237sq.m of commercial floorspace, split between two blocks. Block A would front South Street and comprises a part 5, part 8 and part 9 storey block with the commercial units at ground floor. Block B would front Woodall Road and comprises a part 4, part 5 storey block. Vehicular access is from Woodall Road to ground level parking; the application advises that a total of 63 spaces are proposed using a car stacker system.

Relevant Planning Decisions

None

Consultations

Public

Letters have been sent to 427 adjoining and nearby properties. In addition the application has been advertised on site and in the local press. No responses have been received.

External

The Environment Agency raises no objections subject to conditions relating to contamination, surface water drainage and foundation design.

Natural England raises no objections but expect to see the recommendations set out in the applicants ecological statement adhered to.

Thames Water raises no objection with regard to sewerage or water infrastructure.

Enfield NHS Primary Care Trust advises that there is only one small GP Practice close to the proposed development. This is planning to move to a more appropriate premises, which may not be in the same vicinity thus, leaving the population in that area without a local GP and needing to travel further for GP services.

National Grid advises that they have assessed the proposals with respect to the operational electricity transmission network and operational national gas transmission network. They advise that based on the proximity and sensitivity of these networks they have concluded that the risk is negligible.

The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority are satisfied with the proposals.

Internal

The Head of Economic Development advises that the principle of redevelopment is welcomed in terms of the Place Shaping agenda for Ponders End, as is the provision of retail/commercial space alongside the station approach. However, the proposal as submitted would prejudice the future provision of a new ramped footbridge/cycle-crossing over the railway line by the station, a key objective to achieving greater linkages between the established Ponders End community and the Lee Valley Regional Park.

Relevant Policy

London Plan

3A.1, 3A.2, 3A.3, 3A.5, 3A.6 – Housing provision, quality and maximising the potential of sites. 3A.8, 3A.9, 3A.10, 3A.11 – Affordable housing provision 3A.18 – Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities. 3C.1, 3C.21, 3C.22, 3C.23 – Access and parking 3D.13 - Children and young people’s play and informal recreation strategies 4A.3, 4A.4, 4A.5, 4A.6, 4A.7, 4A.9, 4A.10 – Climate change/sustainable development 4A.12. 4A.13,4A.14 – Flooding/sustainable drainage 4A.19 – Improving air quality 4B.1, 4B.3, 4B.5, 4B.8 – Design/ Public Realm, respecting local context

Unitary Development Plan

(I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)GD3 – Design/Appropriate regard to surroundings (II)GD6, (II)GD8, (II)T13, (II)T16, (II)T19 – Traffic, accessibility, parking (II)H6 Housing mix (II)H8, (II)H9 – Distancing/amenity space standards (II)GD9 – Noise `Local Development Framework

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the Council to replace the UDP with a Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF Core Strategy will set out the spatial vision and strategic objectives for the Borough. The Core Strategy is at an early stage in its adoption process. As this continues the weight given to it will grow and the relevant objectives are reported to demonstrate the degree to which the proposals are consistent with the emerging policy.

Strategic Objectives: Climate Change & Environmental Protection - 1 & 3 Housing & People – 6,7,8 &11 The Open & Built Environment – 15, 16 & 17 Travel and movement – 21 Area Strategies for Growth & Change – 22 & 23

Other Policy Considerations

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 Housing PPG13 Transport PPG24 Planning & Noise PPS25 Development and Flood Risk

Analysis

Suitability of the site for housing

The site adjoins the railway line. It is understood that Network Rail have received confirmation that 4 tracking is the appropriate solution for this line to deal with expected growth, over and above any additional capacity required for Stansted Airport. Development of this site in the manner proposed could have implications for 4 tracking. However, to date Network Rail has not advised that there is need to safeguard additional land and has not responded to consultation on this application. Accordingly, the application cannot be refused on this basis.

PPG24 sets out the parameters for assessing proposals for the introduction of noise sensitive use such as residential development, where there is an existing known noise source, in this case the railway line and commercial development to the south. The PPG classifies sites into four noise exposure categories. A Noise Assessment has been submitted as part of the application. This confirms that site is classified as categories NEC B (Noise should be taken into account) and NEC C (Planning permission should not normally be granted but where it is considered appropriate, for example because there are no alternative quieter sites available, conditions should be imposed to ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise). The latter classification brings in to question the suitability of the site for residential use. However, in view of the high demand for housing in London, the principle of residential development on the site is considered acceptable, subject to appropriate design measures being incorporated in any scheme to minimise the impact of noise. The Noise Assessment recommends the use of a range of glazing types for windows, dependent on their exposure to noise, the use of non-opening windows where appropriate, supported by the inclusion of alternative natural ventilation.

Affordable Housing/ Housing Mix

The application advises that all units are affordable. However, information to demonstrate that the shared ownership/intermediate housing is ‘affordable’ in local terms, has not been provided. Further, the split between rented accommodation and intermediate housing does not accord with the London Plan and a justification for this deviation has not been provided. The split proposed is 35% social rented and 65% intermediate housing. The London Plan objective is to achieve 70% social rented and 30% intermediate. The mix of accommodation (11 x 1 bed, 41 x 2 bed, 14 x 3 bed and 5 x 4 bed) is not considered acceptable and does not meet Enfield’s housing need, in terms of the family sized units (3 bed +) and wheelchair accessible units.

Design, Scale and Form

The site has a PTAL rating of 1b/2. The character of the surrounding area is urban, albeit the site is not located close to a District Centre nor on an arterial route. The London Plan would suggest a density range of 200-450hrph but given the low PTAL, the density should be at the lower end of the range. The density of development proposed equates to 842hrph.

There is scope for flexibility in the application of density standards subject to the overall quality of the design of a scheme and how it fits within the context of the local area. However, it is considered for a variety of reasons as expressed below, that the overall design of the scheme proposed is unacceptable and that the proposal constitutes a significant overdevelopment of the site.

The site lies adjacent to the Alma housing estate, which contains a number of high rise blocks, and the Gas Holders site also comprising structures of some scale. Accordingly, there is scope for some height within any development. However, the Alma high rise blocks sit within a relatively

generous setting, with areas of communal open space and parking at ground level giving a sense of space to compensate for the height of the buildings. In contrast, this proposal involves almost 100% site coverage, with the large scale buildings positioned tight to site boundaries, including the highway boundaries, with little provision for open space around them; the podium deck of amenity space would not be visible in the public domain. In this context, it is considered that the buildings would appear dominant and overbearing and cramped within their setting, detrimental to the amenities and appearance of the area.

Amenity space provision for the flats would be in the form of a podium deck at first floor level, which includes provision for a small children’s playground. The space would be enclosed on all sides by 2m high fencing (acoustic fencing to the railway boundary). All flats in Block B would have access, although the plans submitted do not show any direct access for flats in Block A. Whilst the family sized units are within Block B, it cannot be assumed that residents within Block A do not have a requirement for access to amenity space and this is a failing of the scheme. The podium deck equates to approximately 600sq.m of space to serve 27 flats within Block B. The deck would be dominated by the buildings enclosing it, on its north and south sides and much of the space would be in shadow for long periods of the day. In addition, the amenity space would be exposed to noise from the railway line. Overall the quality of the space is considered to be poor and inadequate to serve a development of 71 units.

A further roof terrace (212sq.m) would be provided within Block B at fourth floor level. This can only be accessed by a limited number of units within Block B and would not provide usable and appropriate space to serve family sized units.

The first floor flats within both Blocks A and B would have access to a small private terrace. Beyond that all flats would have access to a small balcony area.

The quantity of amenity space, excluding balconies, equates to approximately 16% of the gross internal floor area of the buildings. This is significantly below the 75% provision that would be required to meet UDP standards. There are existing recreational areas in close proximity to the north and east of the site and the applicant has expressed a willingness to make a contribution to improve these, although no details have been provided to demonstrate what improvements might be proposed to provide appropriate recreational facilities for children of all ages. In any event, it is not considered that a contribution would be sufficient to off-set the lack of provision of good quality, usable and accessible amenity space on site. The quantity and quality of the space provided as part of this scheme is not considered acceptable and reflects the view that this proposal constitutes an over development of the site.

The separation distance between the two proposed blocks is 20m at the pinch point. This fails to meet the minimum separation distance, which is 30m in the case of 3 storey facing 3 storey buildings, but the configuration of the buildings is such that direct overlooking is unlikely to be an issue. Nevertheless, the size and scale of the buildings, which such limited separation, would result in a cramped form of development.

Public realm

The drawings submitted provide an indicative layout for the enhancement of the approach to Ponders End Station. However, this area is shown to be outside the application site boundary and there is no commitment within the planning application to the applicant undertaking this work. The enhancement of this area would be an important element of any scheme, to ensure the public realm in front of the building provided it with an appropriate setting and, subject to its design, could assist in providing some ‘amenity’ space to support a development. In the absence of firm plans for its enhancement, the indicative plans are not material to the consideration of the application and the development must be considered on the basis of its relationship to the space

as it presently exists. For the reasons set out above, this relationship is considered unsatisfactory.

The Regeneration comments regarding the impact of the development on the ability of the Council to deliver a new pedestrian bridge across the railway line to provide improved access to the Lee Valley Park beyond are noted. The North East Enfield Area Action Plan, Issues and Options report identifies a series of options to improve walking and cycling routes and access across the Lee Valley railway line. However, whilst there is a desire to provide appropriate links, there are no fixed proposals yet embedded in policy and therefore it would not be appropriate to refuse planning permission because of the failure of the scheme to address this issue.

Traffic, access, parking

Vehicular access to the site is from Woodall Road. This is acceptable in principle in traffic generation and highway safety terms. A new footway would be required to the Woodall Road site frontage and northwards to South Street; no provision is made for this. The access to the parking area itself is too narrow to allow two way working and would need amendment.

Parking provision at 63 spaces to serve 71 residential units and the commercial floor space is not considered adequate, despite the proximity of the site to the railway station. Moreover, to achieve 63 spaces, the applicant proposes the use of car stackers. No detail is provided within the application of how these would work and there is a genuine concern about the practicalities of use for future residents and the impact they could have on the functioning of the car parking area.

The development fails to provide a safe, secure and easily accessible route from Woodall Road to the station. The route provided is narrow and would only be accessible to residents and would not provide access for those wishing to get to and from the commercial area of Woodall Road.

Overall, the development as submitted is not considered acceptable in terms of access (both pedestrian and vehicular) and parking and therefore refusal is recommended.

Impact on adjoining development

The development has no impact on the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers in terms of sunlight, daylight, privacy or outlook.

Sustainable Design and Construction

The application confirms the use of solar collectors for domestic hot water heating. The Sustainable Energy Assessment submitted calculates that these will provide around 23% of the total annual energy demand of the building, thus meeting the London Plan target of 20% for renewable energy.

A good score (74/105) is achieved against the Council’s sustainable development assessment through the inclusion of high performance glazing, energy efficient boilers and water saving taps, showers and toilets.

Ecology

The site is in proximity to the reservoirs to the east, which are designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest due to the bird population they support. The site is also designated as of Metropolitan Importance and Important Bird Area as part of the Lea Valley. Subject to development not commencing whilst there are nesting birds on the site, the development will not have a detrimental impact on the ecology of the area.

Impact on trees

There are a number of trees on the site, primarily located close to the Woodall Road frontage. None are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, but it is recognised that they provide some relief in a highly urban area. All trees are shown for removal. Some new planting is shown on the narrow strip between Block B and the railway boundary but overall the scheme fails to provide compensatory tree planting to enhance the public domain and the amenities of the area; the planting provided within the podium deck would make little contribution to the amenities of the wider area.

Conclusion

This site could play a key role in enhancing the area around Ponders End Station and providing new homes. However, the scheme as proposed is considered to be an over development of the site and would result in a scale and mass of building that dominates its immediate environment to the detriment of the area. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved.London Borough of Enfield.License No LA086363, 2003

Scale 1/5000 Date 9/10/2008

TP/94/0123/VAR2

Centre = 528502 E 199859 N

Application Number: TP/94/0123/VAR2 Ward: Chase Date of Registration: 4th August 2008

Contact: Elke Cummins 3851

Location: ST JOHN SENIOR SCHOOL,ST NICHOLAS HOUSE, THE RIDGEWAY, ENFIELD, EN2 8AQ

Proposal: The continued use of St John's Senior School as a school without complying with condition 6 of planning permission ref: TP/94/0123, and the provision of a new vehicular access.

Applicant Name & Address:

Mr Tardios, St Johns Senior School C/O Agent

Agent Name & Address:

Malcolm Honour, CgMs Limited Morley House 26, Holborn Viaduct LondonEC1A 2AT

Recommendation: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

1. The formation of the vehicular access and construction of the access road would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The very special circumstances put forward do not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm. The development would result in loss of trees of landscape value and it would detract from the character and visual amenity of the Green Belt. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies (I)G1, (II)G1, (II)G7 and (II)G11 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policy 3D.9 of the London Plan and Planning Policy Guidance 2 - Green Belts. Furthermore, the development would detract from the character and visual amenity of Enfield Chase Area of Special Character contrary to Policy (II)G6 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Site and surroundings

St. John’s Senior School is located at St. Nichollas House and grounds located on the north side of The Ridgeway. The site is within the Green Belt and Enfield Chase Area of Special Character. The site is well landscaped and contains a number of valuable trees.

Vehicular access and egress is via one-way circulation system. The access point is via a highway leading off The Ridgeway serving the South Barvin Cottages. At the cottages, the highway becomes single track access road which circulates through the school site and exits onto The Ridgeway.

Proposal

Permission is sought to continue the use of the site as a school without complying with condition 6 of planning permission TP/94/0123 (limiting pupil numbers to 175) and provision of a new vehicular access.

Relevant planning history:

TP/94/0123 - planning permission granted in 1994 for the use of a building formally used as a residential institution as a school. Condition 6 limited the number of pupils 175 for reasons of highway safety.

TP/98/0680 - Planning permission for a single storey detached classroom was refused in November 1998. A subsequent appeal was dismissed.

TP/02/1041 sought planning permission for the erection of a sports hall. The application was refused in October 2002.

TP/02/2069 - Planning permission for the erection of a new sports hall was approved in December 2002.

TP/94/0123/VAR1 - Planning permission for an increase in pupil numbers from 175 to 250. The application was refused in March 2007.

CON 5479 - An Enforcement Notice has been served for failure to comply with the conditional limit of 175 pupils. This is the subject of an ongoing appeal. The appeal inquiry was adjoined earlier this year following the submission by the appellant of a proposal for a new access to overcome the reason for service of the Enforcement Notice. The Inspector considered that the Council should consider the proposal and consult with interested parties.

Consultation

Public

Letters have been sent to the occupiers of 9 nearby properties and the application has been advertised. One letter of objection has been received raising the following points:

The unbridled expansion of the school is causing local residents very real problems

Conditions that are necessary to protect local residents and the Green Belt have been ignored Further destruction of the Green Belt is contrary to protection policies

The proposed access will result in further traffic problems

An increase in pupil numbers will be a further threat to amenity

Noise and disturbance

The clearly stated intention of the school is to increase pupil numbers to over 500. This will certainly cause an increase in traffic movement

Councillor Dey considers that the development will damage the Green Belt.

Internal and External

None.

Relevant Policy

The London Plan

Policy 3A.24 Education facilities

Policy 3D.9 Green Belt

Unitary Development Plan

(I)G1 To support strongly the principle of the Green Belt. (II)G1 To resist inappropriate development in the Green Belt. (II)G5 To seek to restore, manage and enhance the Green Belt landscape. (II)G6 Areas of Special Character. (II)G11 Development in the Green Belt (II)G7 Green Belt woodland (I)GD1 Development to have regard to its surroundings (I)GD2 Quality of life and visual amenity (II)GD1 New developments and changes of use are appropriately located (II)GD3 Aesthetic and functional design (II)GD6 Traffic generation (II)GD8 Access and servicing

The Local Development Framework

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the Council to replace the UDP with a Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF Core Strategy will set out the spatial vision and strategic objectives for the Borough. The Core Strategy is at an early stage in its adoption process. As this continues the weight given to it will grow and the relevant objectives are reported to demonstrate the degree to which the proposals are consistent with the emerging policy direction.

The Open & Built Environment SO 14 – Safeguarding the Green Belt

National policy

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG2 Green Belts PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG13 Transportation

Analysis

Highway considerations

In terms of highway safety, the proposed access arrangements represent a significant improvement compared to the existing situation and the proposal is therefore consistent with policy (II) GD8. The proposed junction would have capacity to accommodate at least the existing pupil numbers.

Green belt issues

There is a general presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Such development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt, and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 3.12 of PPG2 provides that engineering and other operations are inappropriate unless they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purpose of including land within the Green Belt.

The considerations which the applicant relies upon to demonstrate that very special circumstances exist are as follows:

The proposals would result in highway and traffic management benefit.

The proposals to improve the access/egress arrangements would offer substantial benefits to neighbouring properties

The proposals would improve the environment by reducing traffic passing gardens.

The proposal would result in significant educational benefit by meeting demand for school places and promoting parental choice.

The proposal would help to ensure the viability of the school and enable investment in increased staffing.

Increased pupil numbers has enabled increased investment in the management of the school

Additional staff and students make it easier to amend and widen the curriculum to meet changing educational need.

Additional income has also improved other aspects of school life such as improving the quality of meals and funding trips.

The proposal would secure existing jobs.

It is accepted that the new access would result in a highway and traffic management benefit and some benefit to neighbouring properties. However, it is considered that the remainder of the exceptional circumstances case submitted by the applicant represents the desire of the school to expand rather than a justifiable need to do so.

The works proposed to enable the construction of a new site exit include the removal of 17 trees, which in view of their classification would normally be retained. This number includes a significant oak tree (no. 1 on the schedule/ plan) on The Ridgeway frontage, the loss of which is of particular concern as it would adversely impact on the visual quality of the site frontage.

The arboricultural Impact assessment indicates that in addition to the loss of 17 trees other may suffer root disturbance or severance likely to impact on their long term health and vitality. In view of the visual importance of the trees within the local context of the site their loss would adversely affect the visual quality of the Green Belt.

It is also considered that the construction of the access road would fundamentally alter the rural character of the locality. It is considered that the development would detract from the open character of the Green Belt and of the Enfield Chase Area of Special Character, leading to further urbanisation of the area.

It is considered that the overall impact of the construction of the access would detract from the character of the Green Belt and the purpose of including the land within it and that this impact would be harmful to an extent that would not outweigh the very special circumstances put forward by the applicant.

Conclusion

It is considered that the very special circumstances put forward for the provision of the proposed access do not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the application is recommended for refusal.