Agenda and draft minutes

Conservation Advisory Group
Tuesday, 30th July, 2019 7.00 pm

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

Contact: Andy Higham 

Items
No. Item

1.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (if any)

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Aydin, Ergin Erbil and Rawlings and from P Fisk (Forty Hill and Bulls Cross Study Group) and J Barnett (Trent Park Conservation Committee). 

2.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

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

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest. 

3.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 114 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Conservation Advisory Group that took place on Tuesday 2nd July 2019.

Attached A

Minutes:

Th minutes of the meeting held on 2 July 2019 were received and agreed as a correct record with the following amendments:

 

Item 5.1Southgate Office Village

 

·         To remove the words “parking was not an issue” (Noted 2)

·         To delete Noted 15 and replace with “Historic England’s full assessment of the application was awaited amid concerns about the tallest building”.

·         To include mention that the Conservation Advisory Committee had not received the outcome of a meeting that had taken place between the Council’s Design Review Panel and the developer. 

·         To change Noted 20 to CAG would expect, should planning permission be granted, that all large developments such as the proposed would make a wider contribution to the community, using the S106 procedure. 

4.

HERITAGE BRIEFING pdf icon PDF 84 KB

To be circulated separately.

Minutes:

The Conservation Advisory Group received a heritage briefing note prepared by Christine White (Heritage and Urban Design Manager) which had been circulated earlier. 

 

NOTED

 

1.            The information provided in the briefing note.

2.            The additional information provided on the feasibility work being undertaken on Broomfield House including information on the covenant, stable block and stable yard. 

3.            A review of the Community Infrastructure Levy and S106 was being carried out to provide a more evidential base for use of the monies received. 

5.

TO RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSALS FOR EDMONTON METHODIST CHURCH

Minutes:

Haydn Jones of Saville Jones Consultants presented proposals for the Edmonton Methodist Church.

 

This application preserved the arts and crafts façade of the church fronting Fore Street, creating a new community church facility, together with a four-storey residential development, including 24 apartments. 

 

CAG had no objection to the proposals and were pleased that a landmark building, defined in the character appraisal of the area, would be preserved. 

 

Members were also supportive of the sustainability elements but did express some concern about the lack of affordable housing. 

 

AGREED that CAG had no objection to the proposals. 

6.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND LISTED BUILDING APPLICATIONS FOR DISCUSSION pdf icon PDF 7 MB

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

Attached B

Minutes:

1.            Former Middlesex University Trent Park Campus, Trent Park Country Park, Snakes Lane, Enfield, EN4 0PS (REF:  19/02205/NMA)

 

This application concerns non-material amendments to house types, given previous approval under the redevelopment scheme. 

 

1.1         Reconfiguration of Flat over Garage House Type

 

CAG objected to this change which they saw as material as the proposals reduced the quality and appearance of the original property.  Concern was also expressed at the proposed brickwork: it appeared layered and was unacceptable.

 

1.2         Reconfiguration of House Type 6

 

CAG objected to this change which they thought was material. While being supportive of the proposals for the reconfiguration of the roof, they objected to the loss of the individual bays, the relocation of the chimney, the removal of the characterful side bay and the changes to fenestration.  Concern was also expressed at the proposed brickwork: it appeared layered and was unacceptable. They agreed overall that the proposals would destroy the clarity and simplicity of the original scheme. 

 

1.3         Amendments to House Type 7

 

CAG objected to these amendments which they thought were material changes. They objected to the removal of the chimney, the change to the canopy on the entrance porch, the removal of the modern style balcony and of the high side window.  Concern was also expressed at the proposed brickwork: it appeared layered and was unacceptable. They agreed that the changes moved away from the simplicity of the consented scheme.

 

1.4         Amendments to House Type 10

 

CAG objected to these amendments which they agreed were material changes. They objected to the significant alterations to the design, moving away from the simplicity of the consented scheme, including the change of porch style, the string course, the specification of the roof materials and the layered brick patterning. 

 

1.5         Amendments to House Type 15

 

CAG objected to these amendments which they agreed were material changes. They objected to the alterations which took away from the simplicity of the consented scheme: including the complicated fenestration, changes to the window head detail and to the quoins.  The majority were however content with the introduction of a third dormer window on the front roof.  It was unclear whether the face brickwork has changed from the consented scheme.

 

CAG was also concerned, in general, about the proposed fenestration changes to most house types. Further framing has been added; the net result being to negate the original design simplicity. 

 

CAG agreed that the sum of the changes were material as they significantly altered the architectural style of the whole scheme.  Overall the proposals were unacceptable and lowered the quality of the consented designs. 

 

2.            Clarendon Cottage, 17 Gentlemen’s Row, Enfield, EN2 6PT (REF: 19/02293/FUL)

 

The application proposed significant alterations to this grade 2* listed 16th century building with 17th and 18th century extensions. 

 

CAG objected to the application because of the lack of clarity in relation to NPPF (Paragraph 189) policy. It was difficult to determine what was proposed from the plans.

 

It was suggested that the Charles Lamb  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

CHAIR'S FEEDBACK FROM PLANNING COMMITTEE

Since the last meeting of CAG there have been no items on the Planning Committee’s agenda, that have been before CAG.

Minutes:

There was no feedback about items considered at recent Planning Committee meetings. 

8.

CONSERVATION OFFICER'S UPDATES AT CASES DISCUSSED AT PREVIOUS CAG MEETINGS pdf icon PDF 72 KB

Attached C

Minutes:

Received and noted the Conservation Officer’s update on items discussed at recent Conservation Advisory Group meetings. 

9.

CONSERVATION AREAS, LISTED BUILDING APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS DETERMINED pdf icon PDF 326 KB

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

Attached D

Minutes:

Received and noted the list of conservation area and listed building applications determined from 24 June 2019 to 21 July 2019. 

10.

OPEN SESSION

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

Minutes:

1.            Trees along the Railway Embankments

 

Hadley Wood Conservation Area Study Group advised that the policy which had resulted in the removal of many trees and vegetation along the borough’s railway lines has been changed.  Trees are now being treated as an asset and only those trees which it was necessary for operational reasons to remove were being felled.  Trial re-planting is taking place in some areas. 

 

2.            Hertford Loop - Hadley Wood Conservation Area Study Group advised that dialogue with the community was taking place. 

 

3.            Boundary Commission Review – Changes to the Ward Boundaries

 

The Boundary Commission is currently undertaking a review into the borough’s ward boundaries.  This could have an impact on conservation bodies.  They were recommended to feed in to the current boundary commission consultation. 

 

4.            23 Camlet Way – Planning permission had been granted for this site with a strong landscaping condition.  Work seemed to be taking place ignoring the condition.  Enforcement action was needed.  Andy Higham agreed to look into it.

 

5.            Maze Inn, Southgate Conservation Area - this had recently been demolished without planning permission.  Enforcement action was being undertaken. 

 

6.            Haydon House Office Block – large antennae had been installed.  Andy Higham agreed to check whether they had planning permission.

 

7.            107 Derwent Road – Lakes Estate Conservation Area Study Group to initiate enforcement procedures.

 

8.            6 Old Park Road – Lakes Estate Conservation Area Study Group to pursue progress of the appeal through the Inspectorate’s web site. 

 

9.            Beaver Town Development, East Duck Lees Lane – The Enfield Society to check whether the core of the building was being retained as agreed. 

11.

CALENDAR OF MEETINGS pdf icon PDF 7 KB

To note the date of the next meeting:

 

  Tuesday 3 September 2019

 

Calendar of meetings attached:  Attached E

Minutes:

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

 

·         Tuesday 3 September 2019