Agenda and minutes

Conservation Advisory Group - Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019 7.00 pm

Venue: Conference Room, Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, EN1 3XA. View directions

Contact: Andy Higham 

No. Item




Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Gunawardena, Christine White, Peter Fisk, Wendy Brown and Brian Foyle. 



Membersof the ConservationAdvisory Groupare invitedto identify any disclosablepecuniary,other pecuniaryor non-pecuniaryinterests relevantto itemson theagenda.


There were no declarations of interest. 


MINUTES pdf icon PDF 182 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Conservation Advisory Group that took place on Tuesday 4 June 2019.                                                             Attached A 


The minutes of the meeting held on 4 June 2019 were received and agreed as a correct record with the following amendments: 


·         Apologies had been received from Anne Bishop-Laggett.


·         The date of the Southgate District Civic Trust’s public consultation event was 22 June 2019 not 27 June as stated in the minutes.  (Item 14.1)


·         The new developments in Northaw and Cuffley were actually for 7,000 new homes. (Item 14.3)


Heritage Briefing

To be circulated separately.


Christine White had earlier indicated to the Chair that the content of her previous report largely reflected the position as at this meeting. 


Planning Applications and Listed Building Applications for Discussion pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To receive a briefing listing the planning applications and listed building applications for discussion.                                                                     Attached B

Additional documents:


1.            Southgate Office Village, 286 Chase Road, N14 6HF (REF:  19/01941/FUL)


This proposal involved demolition of the existing buildings and erection of new buildings between 2 to 17 stories high including offices, 200 residential units and a café together with access, basement car park and energy centre, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works. 


The development had been discussed at the CAG meeting in March 2019 before the application was submitted.


The developers had originally wanted a development of 22 stories but this had now been bought down to 17 following comments from Historic England about the impact on the view from Grovelands Park and discussions with Enfield. 




1.               CAG’s comments from the meeting in March had been passed to the developers. These included comments on parking, crossings, amenities, accessibility to Southgate Station, that 18 stories were too high, light at ground floor levels, affordable housing and the impact on local schools and health facilities. 

2.               The footprint of the site had been judged to be able to support a high-density development.  As the site was close to a transport hub parking was not an issue.  All flats had access to private amenity space as well as additional communal open spaces.  Section 106 monies could be used to fund strategic infrastructure. 

3.               Concern was expressed about the clarity of Enfield’s high-rise building policies.  This proposal is developer led; it should be the other way round.  The advice given being that this proposal is based on the London Plan, as well as existing and emerging Enfield strategies, including a tall building strategy.  The Council was looking to fulfil housing need around town centres.  A new Local Plan was being developed and would be adopted at the end of next year.  All these policies would be taken into account when considering this application. 

4.               Although the site was immediately adjacent to the conservation area, this did not necessarily mean that development could not be high.

5.               Officers had carried out consultation with land owners about possible sites for development. They had to be able to show how it would be possible to enable housing development over the next 5 years. 

6.               Education was consulted on major developments. 

7.               Southgate District Civic Trust (“SDCT”) had held an open day on 22 June 2019 for the public to view the proposals.  Members of the public had expressed concern that such a development would dramatically change Southgate and that quality of life would suffer.  They were mistrustful of developer claims on consultations undertaken. 

8.               Many people were concerned that the development proposed was over development, was too high and did not take account of the architectural grain of the town.  CAG members felt that a building could be high density without being tall.

9.               The view that the proposals would degrade the setting of the Grade II star listed building (Southgate Underground Station).

10.            The view that the building was actually 19 stories high, if the tall storey on the ground floor and the lift  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.


CAG Working Party Updates pdf icon PDF 68 KB

To receive an update on the current working parties.  Attached C


Dennis Stacey updated the group on the latest situation with regard to the following working groups:


1.            1a Conway Road – this was a modernist proposal on a restricted site.  An improved set of drawings had been received but the applicant had also been asked to provide a 360 degree computer generated image of the completed building along with 1:20 details of key components.  The design had improved but more needed to be done.

2.            The Glade – the planning application had been determined following CAG’s comments.

3.            Bridge House – important details were still to be agreed.

4.            Cemetery House – members were pleased with the work done to restore the house and had supported the demolition of the stable block, which had deteriorated beyond repair, and its replacement with a terrace of houses to complement the house.

5.            Chace Side Medical Centre – the design had been improved with a welcome change to the roof top lift shaft.  Andy Higham agreed to report back on the current situation with regard to planning and include a note with the minutes. 

6.            Travis Perkins Site – there has been no movement since CAG’s last meeting with the developer and the working party would be dropped for the present.

7.            Garnault – the applicant is being asked to reduce the depth of the extension.

8.            37 Church Hill – CAG had no objections and the application was going through the planning process.  No further commentary will be necessary. 

9.            9-12 Oakwood Parade – the Council and CAG have agreed the preferred design option with the developer.  The architect has been asked to submit enlarged details and proposed materials.

10.         Whitewebbs Barn – an external specialist had been employed by the Council to assess the financial viability of the proposals for the restoration of the barn.  Other issues concerning draining and landscaping had been agreed but the conservation deficit was outstanding. 



To note that since the last meeting of CAG there have been no items, on the planning committee's agenda, that have been before CAG. 


NOTED that there had been no items on the Planning Committee Agenda that have been before CAG. 



To receive feedback on cases discussed at the March meeting of CAG. 


To be reported at the next meeting.



To receive a list of conservation areas, listed building applications and appeals determined.                                                                                          Attached:  D


CAG noted the list of conservation areas, listed building applications and appeals determined. 



Toenablemembers of the ConservationAdvisoryGroup to bringup urgentmatters not covered elsewhere on theagenda


1.            Open Space Hoppers Road (17/03128/FUL)  CAG had requested that this be bought back to the group before determination but this had not happened.   Andy Higham agreed to check channels of communication.


2.            31 Forty Hill (19/00898/HOU) – planning permission had been granted for a shed on the presumption that this was outside the conservation area.  This was not so.  The former building had been completely demolished and a building with a mish mash of styles put in its place including a toilet and sink.  The materials were not thought to be appropriate and the building would have looked better if it had had a hipped roof on the end of the building.


3.            There were an increasing number of “granny annexes” of this type being created, often from garages.  This sort of development could be controlled through the use of conditions.  Annexes of this type had to be ancillary to the main house and could not be a separate unit of accommodation.


4.            Beaver Town Development, East Duck Lees Lane – the core of the building should be being retained.  Andy Higham would check that this was happening.


5.            Metro Bank, Enfield Town.  It was agreed that the recent renovations had been carried out very well and had improved the frontage. 


6.            Section 106 Money – it was urged that more of the Section 106 money should be spent on restoring local heritage.  Christine White was drawing up a list of possible beneficiaries for each conservation area.  However, Council priority was to ensure that there was the maximum amount of affordable housing in any new scheme.


7.            Paddle Tennis Courts on Walker Cricket Ground, Southgate – concern was expressed about proposals which were felt could spoil the look of the ground.  However this was a proposal which was just being considered by the Cricket club, no application had been submitted.


8.            107 Derwent Road – a front garden in the conservation area had been removed which had not had permission.  Some misleading advice had been received, but this had been rectified.  Andy Higham agreed to find out what had happened.


9.            6 Old Park Road – the refused, retrospective application has been appealed. Andy Higham agreed to look into what progress had been made as a considerable time has elapsed.


10.         Former Newsagent in the Grangeway – an application for a flue and change of use had been submitted.  The Heritage Statement within the application had not reflected previous refusals.  Planning policy did seek to control over concentration of restaurants in certain areas to 1 in 5 units, but this might be looked at flexibly in the cases of long term vacancy.


11.         Berkeley Homes Development, Trent Park – concern was expressed about the large number of non-material amendments to the scheme, particularly in relation to the Mansion House, Orangery and Wisteria Walk.  CAG members were assured that monthly meetings were being held with the developers to monitor works being carried out.  It was suggested that Berkeley Homes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.



To note the date of the next meeting:


·         Tuesday 30 July 2019


Calendar of meetings attached:  Attached E


NOTED the calendar of meetings for the rest of the year and the date agreed for the next meeting:


·         Tuesday 30 July 2019